Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Defensio fidei Nicaenae = a defence of the Nicene Creed : out of the extant writings of the Catholick doctors, who flourishsed during the three first centuries of the Christian Church"

See other formats














VOL. I. 





THE circumstances which led to the composition of this 
Work, and the history of its completion and publication, are 
fully narrated by Bp. Bull in the Preface to the Reader, pp. 
i. &c., and by Nelson in his life of Bp. Bull, pp. 239, &c., 
in which there is also a valuable review of the state of the 
controversy at that time. An account of the successive edi 
tions will be found in Dr. Burton s Preface to the 8vo. edition 
of the Works, first published in Oxford in 1827. The text of 
that edition has been followed in the present Translation, and 
the additional notes which it contains have also been trans 
lated ; those of Dr. Burton being distinguished by the letter 
B. His notes, and the references added by him, as well as 
the few additional references and observations which are 
introduced in the notes to this Translation, are included in 
brackets. Grabe s longer Annotations are removed from the 
places which they occupy in the Oxford edition, at the ends 
of the several chapters, to an Appendix at the end of the 
Work, in order not to interrupt the continuity of the original 
Treatise. The paging of the folio edition of Grabe, and of 
the 8vo. of 1827, are retained in the margin, the latter 
being included in brackets. 

The passages quoted from the fathers are preserved in 


the original language as notes, and in a few places the con 
text has been added. 

There was a translation of this and of Bp. Bull s other 
Works on the Trinity by Dr. F. Holland, in two volumes 
8vo. A.D. 1725. This has been consulted by the trans 
lator, but so little use has been m ade of it, that the present 
must be considered as an independent version. 

The Indices and List of Authors for this and the other 
Works on the Holy Trinity, will be placed at the end of the 
volumes, as in Dr. Burton s 8vo. edition of the originals. 
















IN the Apology % which I sent out in defence of a work 
entitled the Harmonia Apostolica, the first-fruits of my theo 
logical studies, I said b , being forced to do so by a very grave 
and unjust calumny of my opponents, "that I had drawn 
out certain historico-ecclesiastical propositions concerning the 
divinity of the Son, in which, as I trusted, I had clearly shewn 6 
the agreement of the ancient doctors, who preceded the Nicene 
council, with the Nicene fathers, as well concerning the con- 
substantiality of the Son of God as His co-eternity, the tra 
dition having been derived from the very time of the Apostles; 
but that, owing to ill health, and other cares and business 
of sundry kinds, it had not yet been in my power to put 
together my scattered sheets, and bring to a completion my 
imperfect work." Upon this I was assailed on all sides 
with entreaties from learned friends, that I would apply both 
mind and hand, to finish, as speedily as possible, a work 
which was absolutely needed. For they gave me to under 
stand that the writings of Christopher Ch. Sandius d were 

a [Apologia pro Harmonia, &c. 
Lond. 1676.] 

b i. 8. [p. 3 17. See Bp. Bull on Jus 
tification, Pt. ii. and iii. : Anglo- Cath. 
Library, p. 238.] 

[Bp. Bull here omits the words 
"against Petavius and others" which 
occur in the Apologia. The calumny 
to which he refers was a charge of So- 
cinianizing on the doctrine of justifi 

d Of the treatise of Christopher 
Christopher Sandius : the first edition 
had been sent out A.D. 1668, the se 
cond so much enlarged and corrected 
as, except from its retaining the origi 
nal title, to be a new work, (ibid.,) 
was published A.D. 1676, with the fol 
lowing title, Christoph. Christophori 
Sandii Nucleus Historiae Ecclesias- 

ticae, exhibitus in Historia Arianorum, 
tribus libris comprehensa : Quibus prae - 
tina est Tractatus de Veteribus Scrip- 
toribus Ecclesiasticis,secunda editio ab 
Authore locupletata et emendata. Co- 
loniae apud Joannem Nicolai, 1676. 
Prefixed is a Prasfatio ad Lectores, 
by Christophorus Philippi Sandius the 
father of the writer. The volume con 
tains 432 pages (besides Addenda and 
Index) ; of these 49 pages are occupied 
by the tract de Scriptoribus Eccleslasti^ 
cis: the heading of the pages of the rest 
is Enucleatfe Histor ue Ecclesiastics, lib. 
i., &c., though the title-page, as has 
been said, bears the name Nucleus 
H. E. exMbitus, &c. Bp. Bull through 
out refers to both these tracts, and to 
the Nucleus under both titles.] 

b 2 


every where in the hands of jmr students of theology and 
others, a writer who opeHTv and unblushingly maintains the 
blasphemy of Arius as the truly catholic_doctrine, and as 
supported by thp. x^mpp^^vFall the ancients who pTelfecled the 
council of Nine. Overcome^at last bytheir reiterated re 
quests, (although I had not even then sufficient leisure, nor 
was my health strong enough for so arduous a task,) I again 
read over the works of the primitive fathers ; the testimonies 
out of them, bearing on my subject, which I had collected 
into my note-books, I again submitted one by one to a fresh 
and most searching examination ; I added several others to 
them; the passages alleged by Sandius and others in sup 
port of the opposite side I weighed with increased care ; 
and lastly, I put in order the whole of this, as it were, rude 
and confused mass of my observations, disposing and arrang 
ing them in the easiest and clearest method that I could; 
and it is now more than five years since I finished the work, 
in the state in which it now comes out. 

If you ask, why then has the publication been so long 
delayed ? I will tell you plainly. As soon as I had put the 
finishing hand to my MS., I immediately offered it to three 
booksellers in succession, for publication, on the fairest 
terms : they all, however, on different grounds, declined to 
undertake the care and expense of printing the work ; 
apprehensive, I suppose, that few would be found to buy a 
book, of which the author was little known, and the subject 
difficult, and which very few indeed would care to bestow 
pains in examining. Nor was I myself, a person of narrow 
income and with a large family, able to bear the expense 
of the press. 

In consequence, I brought home again my neglected work, 
to be laid up on the shelves of my bookcase ; content to have 
had the will at least to do something for the defence of divine 
truth, and to have complied, so far as lay in my power, with 
the wishes of my friends. 

After I had for some time consoled myself with these re 
flections, at length, at the suggestion of a friend, I sub 
mitted my papers, raised as it were from the grave, to the 
judgment of a most distinguished man and consummate 
theologian, Dr. William Jane, the very worthy Regius Pro- 


fessor of Divinity in Oxford, who, with his usual kindness, 
did not decline the trouble of reading them through, and 
when he had read them through, and honoured them with 
his approval, he further recommended them to the favour and 
patronage of the great bishop of Oxford 6 , and easily obtained 
from his singular kindness and zeal for catholic truth, that 
this Defence of the Nicene Creed should at last come out 
from the press at the Sheldonian Theatre, which the bishop 
had fitted up at his own expense. But as that press was 
occupied with different works of other writers, there was for 
a considerable time no opportunity whatever, and afterwards 
only occasionally, for mine ; and hence delay has arisen in 
bringing this treatise through the press. 

If I could have foreseen that it would have been so long 
before this treatise of mine was published, you should have 
certainly had it much more carefully finished, more polished, 
and more rich in matter. But, as I have already said, I 
completed this work at the request of friends, who were 
keenly pressing and unceasingly spurring me on, to revise 
and enlarge the collections which I had by me in defence 
of the catholic faith, made from the reading of ancient 
authors, and, having enlarged them, to publish them as 
speedily as possible, as an immediate antidote to the poison 
ous writings of Sandius. When, however, I had lost all 
hope of publishing it through the booksellers, what object 
was there for further enlarging and improving a work, which 
was now condemned to the moths and worms? And at last, 
when an unexpected opportunity was afforded for my papers 
being printed, and I had placed them in the printer s hands, 
they were no longer under my controul. 

It were, indeed, to be wished, that this most important 
subject had been treated by some one very much more 
learned than myself, on whom the providence of God had 
withal bestowed more uninterrupted leisure, a better fur 
nished library, and all requisites in more abundant measure. 
Very many such persons our English Church has, and such 
I pray Almighty God that she may ever continue to have. 
But no one hitherto, so far as I know, has undertaken to 
work out this subject with the care it deserves. Do not, 

e [Bp. Fell, to whom the work is dedicated.] 


therefore, disdain to use and profit by what I have done, 
till such time as one appears, who shall have brought out 
from a more ample store a better and more complete work. 
You have here all that it was in my power to do, a man of 
moderate abilities and learning, the possessor of a limited 
store of books, in poor health, hindered by domestic cares, 
and, whilst writing this work, tied to the cure of souls in a 
country parish, and lastly, living far from the society of 
learned men, an exile, as it were, from the literary world. 
This one thing, however, I may venture to assure you of, 
and most solemnly to declare, that in the whole course of 
this work I have observed the utmost good faith. Not a pas 
sage have I adduced from primitive antiquity in support of 
the decisions of the council of Nice, which, after a careful 
examination both of the passage itself and its context, I did 
not seriously think really made for the cause which we are 
maintaining; not a passage have I garbled, but have put be 
fore you all entire. The opinions of the Greek fathers I have 
cited not only in Latin, but in the Greek also, in order that 
those who know Greek may be able themselves to form a 
surer judgment of their genuine meaning. Of those passages 
which the modern defenders of Arianism have adduced from 
the ancient doctors in support of it, I have not knowingly 
and designedly kept back any; nor have I ever attempted 
any how to salve over the harder sayings of the ancients by 
cunning artifices ; but have endeavoured, by observing the 
drift and purpose of each author, and by adducing other 
clearer statements from their several writings, to establish on 
solid grounds that they not only admit, but actually require, 
to be understood in a catholic sense. To end the matter in 
one word, while I willingly confess that it is indeed possible 
that I may be mistaken, I resolutely deny that I have wished 
to deceive any one. 

As regards the chief point, of which I wish to persuade 
others, I myself am quite convinced, and that on no hasty 
view, that, What the Nicene fathers laid down concerning 
the divinity of the Son, in opposition to Arius and other 
heretics, the same in effect (although sometimes, it may be, 
in other words, and in another mode of expression) was 
taught, without any single exception, by all the fathers 


and approved doctors of the Church, who flourished be 
fore the council of Nice, even from the very times of the 

I pray you kindly to excuse the mistakes "of the printer, 
and the occasional slips of a careless corrector of the press. 
It has been my misfortune, that I have had the opportunity 
of examining and correcting, in person, one sheet only, and 
that the last, of this work, as it passed through the press. 
As the only thing I can do, you will find that all the errors 
of the press that are of any moment, are carefully brought 
together and set down in a table prefixed to the work f . 

And now, reader, whose object is truth and piety, if these 
labours of mine are of any service towards confirming your 
faith on the primary article of the Christian religion, there 
will be good cause both for you and myself to give thanks 
to Almighty God. This only do I ask of you as a recom 
pense for my labours, (and this I earnestly request,) that in 
your prayers you would sometimes remember me, a sinner, 
and mine. 

Farewell in Christ our Saviour, our Lord and our God. 

f [There was a table of errata prefixed to the first edition of the original work.] 



































or THE 




In which the occasion, design, and division of the entire 
work are set forth i 




The Proposition stated : and the former part of it, viz. the pre-existence of 
the Son before [His incarnation] of the blessed Virgin Mary, demon 
strated ......... 15 


The second part of the proposition is established, respecting the pre-existence 
of the Son before the foundation of the world, and the creation of all 
things through Him . . . . . . .36 




The subject proposed. The word bp.oov<nos, "of one substance," explained 
at length. The Nicene fathers cleared from the suspicion of em 
ploying new and strange language, in using this word to express the 
true Godhead of the Son. The opposition between the council of 
Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and the council of Nice against 
Arius, reconciled. Proof that the term 6/j.oovfftos, was not derived 
from heretics. A brief review of the heads of the arguments, by which 
the Antenicene doctors confirmed the consubstantiality . . 55 




The doctrine of the author of the epistle ascrihed to Barnabas, of Hernias, 
or the Shepherd, and of the martyr Ignatius, concerning the true 
Divinity of the Son, set forth 86 


Clement of Rome and Polycarp incidentally vindicated from the aspersions 
of the author of the Irenicum, and of Sandius . 


Containing an exposition of the views of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, 
Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch ; with an incidental declaration of 
the faith of Christians respecting the Holy Trinity, in the age of 
Lucian, out of Lucian himself . 


Setting forth the doctrine of Irenreus, concerning the Son of God, most 

plainly confirmatory of the Nicene Creed . . .160 


Containing exceedingly clear testimonies out of S. Clement of Alexandria, 
concerning the true and supreme Divinity of the Son, and, further, 
concerning the consubstantiality of the whole most Holy Trinity .181 


Wherein the doctrine of Tertullian, concerning the consubstantiality of the 

Son, is shewn to coincide altogether with the Nicene Creed . . 193 


The Nicene Creed, on the article of the consubstantiality of the Son, is con 
firmed by the testimonies of the presbyter Caius, and of the celebrated 
bishop and martyr S. Hippolytus . 206 


Wherein it is shewn fully and clearly that the doctrine of Origen concerning 
the true Divinity of the Son of God was altogether catholic, and per 
fectly consonant with the Nicene Creed, especially from his work 
against Celsus, which is undoubtedly genuine, and most free from cor 
ruption, and which was composed by him when in advanced age, and 
with most exact care and attention . . . .217 




Concerning the faith and views of the martyr Cyprian, of Novatian, or the 
author of a treatise on the Trinity among the works of Tertullian, and 
of Theognostus . . . . . . . .285 


In which is set forth the consent of the Dionysii of Rome and of Alex 
andria with the Nicene fathers . . 302 


On the opinion and faith of the very celebrated Gregory Thaumaturgus, 

hishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus ..... 322 


Wherein the opinion, touching the consubstantiality of the Son, of the six 
bishops of the council of Antioch, who wrote an epistle to Paul of 
Samosata, as well as of Pierius, Pamphilus, Lucian, Methodius, mar 
tyrs, is shewn to be catholic, and plainly consonant to the Nicene 
Creed . . 336 


The opinion and faith of Arnobius Afer and Lactantius, touching the true 
divinity of the Son is declared. The second book on the consubstantiality 
is wound up with a brief conclusion . . . 358 



N I C E N E CREED, &c. 




1. THE first (Ecumenical Council, which was held at Nice 8 , INTROD 

has ever been regarded by all Catholics as of the highest 

authority and esteem, and indeed deservedly so. For never, 
since the death of the Apostles, has the Christian world be 
held a synod with higher claims to be considered universal 
and free, or an assembly of bishops and prelates more august 
and holy. "For at that council," as Eusebius says b , "there 
were assembled out of all the Churches, which had filled the 
whole of Europe, Asia, and Africa, the very choicest 1 from ra 
amongst the ministers of God : and one sacred building, 6lvla 
expanded as it were by the divine command, embraced at 
once within its compass both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoe 
nicians and Arabians, and Christians of Palestine; Egyp 
tians too, Thebans and Libyans, and some who came out 
of Mesopotamia. A bishop also from Persia was present 
at the council, and even Scythia was not wanting to that 
company. Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia and Cap- 

a A.D. 325. Cave, Hist. Lit. Sec. re O!KOS fvKT-fjptos, &(nrep e/c euv ir\a- 

Arian. BOWYER. Tvv6/j.vos %v$ov exdpei Kara rb avrb 

b [Bp. Bull only gave the Latin of 2,vpovs a/j.a Kal KtAt/cas, QoiviKas re Kal 

this extract; and the translation has Apaftiovs Kal TlaXaiffnvovs Kal eirl rov- 

been made according to that Latin; -rots Alywrriovs, yfiaiovs, Ai/3vas, rovs 

but it is thought best to add the Greek r c/c /j.(rrjs ru>v irorafj.S>v opfj.w/j.ei ovs 

original. TU>V yovv ^KK\t](TiS)v airaau/v, ijtir) Se Kal Tlfpffrjs eiriV/coTros rfj crvv6q> 

at TT\V EvputTryv arrao av, Aifivrjv re Kal Trapr/i* ovSe ^,Ki>6rjs aTreXi/j.irdi fro ri\s 

r^v Affiav firKripovv, &IJLOV ffvvr\Kro ruv xopeias Tl6vros re Kal TaXaria Kal 

rov 0eou Xfiroupjwv ra aKpodivia efs I\af.i. pvX(a > KairiraSoKia re Kal Affia Kal 

2 Number and character of the Nicene Council. 

INTROD. padocia, with Asia and Phrygia, contributed the choicest 
of their prelates. Moreover Thracians, Macedonians, Achai- 
ans and Epirotes, and inhabitants of still more remote dis 
tricts, were, notwithstanding their distance, present. Even 
from Spain itself, that most celebrated man, [Hosius,] 
took his seat along with the rest. The prelate of the im 
perial city c " (of Rome, that is,) "was indeed absent on 
account of his advanced age, but presbyters of his were 
present to supply his place. Constantine is the only emperor 
from the beginning of the world, who, by convening this vast 
assembly, an image, as it were, of the company of the Apo 
stles, presented to Christ his Saviour a garland such as this, 
twined and knit together by the bond of peace, as a sacred 
memorial of his gratitude for the victories which he had 
gained over his foreign and domestic enemies. ... In this com 
pany more than two hundred and fifty bishops were present d ," 
(Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome, Rufinus, Socrates, and many 
others, assert that three hundred and eighteen bishops sat in 
this council,) "whilst the number of the presbyters who 
accompanied them, with the deacons, acolytes, and crowds of 
others, can scarcely be computed. Moreover of these mi 
nisters of God some were eminent for their wisdom and 
eloquence, others for their gravity of life and patient en 
durance of hardships, whilst others again were adorned with 
modesty and gentleness of demeanour. Some also among 
them were held in the highest honour from their ad 
vanced age; others were young and vigorous in body and 
mind," &c. 

2. The subject treated of in this council concerned the 

&pvyia TOVS irap avrais trape tx 01 * K ~ XP f Las > 

Kpirovs. aAAa Kal QpaKts Kal Mae- T-f]KOvra Kal diaKOffioov apiB/ virep- 

Soves Axaioi re Kal HTreipwrcu TOUTWI/ aKovri^ovcra eTro^ueVcoj/ Se TOVTOLS irpeo-- 

ot eTt TroppcoTaTCo otKot/i/Tes a.irt}VTtov. fivrtpcw Kal SiaKQVwv a.KO\ovQ<av re TrAei - 

avrwis re ^Trdvuv 6 iravv ftocafAevos els CTTCOJ/ dacav erepo)!/, ouS -f]V aptQ/uios els 

iiv IOLS 7roAAo?y a/j.a avvt &psvtov TTJS 8e Kard\~r]^/iv. TUV 5e TOV Qeov AtiTovpy&v 

ye fiacri\vov(rr)STr6\us, 6 /j.ev TrpoeffTws ol /J.ev SieTrpeirov <Tcnpias \6ycp ol Se 

v<TTpei Sia yrjpas TrpeafivTtpoi Se av- fiiov (rTpp6Tif]ri Kal KapTtpias viro/j.oi fj 

TOV TrapcWes TTJV avrov rdiv eTrA.Tjpovv. ol Se rif peac? rpoircf 

Toiovrov fj.6vos e| alwvos efs ^atnAeus ^rav Se TOVTOOV ol (JL\V 

Xpicrrcf ffrsfyavov 8e(T/J.cp TJ/iTjyUeVof ot Se veoTTjrt Kal i//ux??s c*- K / J - fj 

, iii. 7 9. 

rip avrov ScoT^pi TTJS 8ia\du.irot Ts. Vit. Const 

/car e xflpw 17 Kc " iro\ff*.i(av v iKT)S 0607rpe- [pp. 579 581.] 
Tres avfriOei -xapiffTripiov etK^a xopetas c See Valesius s notes on the pas 

a7rO(TToAtK7JS TO.VT^V KO0 ^UCtS ffVCTT^- SRge. 

rl Se TTJS ira/Jou(T7js d Ibid. 

Early opponents ; answered by Socrates. 3 

chief doctrine 1 of the Christian religion,, namely, the dignity 13. 
of the Person of Jesus Christ our Saviour; whether He is to i capite. 
be worshipped as true God, or to be reduced to the rank and 
condition of creatures and of things subject to the true God. [3] 
If we imagine that in this question of the very utmost 
moment the whole of the rulers of the Church altogether 
erred, and persuaded the Christian people to embrace their 
error, how will the promise of Christ our Lord hold good, 2 
who engaged to be present, even to the end of the world, 
with the Apostles, and consequently with their successors ? 
For, since the promise extends to the end of the world 6 , and 
yet the Apostles were not to continue alive so long, Christ 
must most certainly be regarded as addressing, in the per 
sons of the Apostles, their successors also in that office. 

3. I cannot but feel indignation, nay even a degree of 
horror, so often as I reflect on these things, and consider 
the amazing ignorance, or rather the impious madness of 
those writers who have not shrunk from openly raving 
against the venerable fathers, as if they had, with settled 
evil purpose 2 , or, at all events, through ignorance and rash- 8 ma ]j t j a 
ness, corrupted the catholic doctrine respecting the Per 
son of Jesus Christ, which had been taught by the Apo 
stles and preserved in the Church during the first three 
centuries, and had obtruded a new faith on the Christian 
world. Not to mention the early Arians, the most notorious 
enemies and calumniators of the Nicene Creed, it was on this 
account that Sabinus was infamous in former times, a fol 
lower of the faction of Macedonius, whose rash and shameless 
judgment concerning the Nicene council is mentioned and 
refuted by Socrates f . That excellent Church historian, after 
saying that he had related the history of the Nicene council, 
in order that, if any persons should be disposed to condemn 
that council as having fallen into error in a matter of the 
faith, we should give them no heed at all, subjoins these 
words?; "Let us not believe Sabinus, the follower of 
Macedonius, who calls those who assembled in that council 
unlearned and simple men. For this Sabinus, bishop of the (-4-1 

e Matt, xxviii. 20. BOWYER. Bull : the Greek is ; ^r?5e 7n<rTeiW J uej 

f Eccl. Hist., i. 8. 2a.pivcp T> MaKfSoviatxp iSuaras avrovs 

8 [The translation is based on the KOI d^eAeTs Ka\ovvri TOVS e/celb-e aw~ 

Latin, which alone was given by Bp. A0<Wccs. 2o/3iVos yap 6 rwv eV Hpa- 

B 2 


1 synodo- 

riun acta. 

4 Securities that the Council did not err. 

Macedonians at Heraclea, a city of Thrace, who collected into 
one work the acts of different synods 1 , treated with derision 
the prelates of the council of Nice as unlearned and simple 
men, and perceives not that he is herein charging as unlearned 2 
even Eusebius himself, who after a long and searching enquiry 
embraced that Creed. There are some things which he has 
purposely passed over, and others which he has perverted and 
altered, but still he has drawn all to his own purpose and views: 
and yet he praises Eusebius Pamphili h as a most trust-worthy 
witness, and also bestows encomiums on the emperor himself, 
as one who was exceedingly well acquainted with the doctrines 
of the Christian faith; at the same time he finds fault with 
the Creed, which was set forth at Nice, as if it were compiled 
by ignorant and unlearned men ; and thus does he knowingly 
despise and neglect the express declaration of an author 
whom he acknowledges to be a wise man and a truthful wit 
ness ; for Eusebius declares, that of the ministers of God who 
were present at the Nicene synod, some were eminent for 
their eloquence and wisdom, others for the firmness and for 
titude of their life; and that the emperor himself, who was pre 
sent, by leading all to concord, made them to be of one mind 
and of one consent/ At the same time, however, Socrates 1 , 
in the ninth chapter of the same book, censures Sabinus, be 
cause he did not also reflect, " that, even if the members of 
that council were unlearned men, and yet were illuminated 
by God and by the grace of the Holy Ghost, they could by 
no means have erred from the truth." For Socrates seems 
to have thought that the illuminating grace of the Holy 
Ghost is always present with a council of bishops truly uni- 

ia TTJS &paKT]s MaK&oviavuiv eTrt 


TOVS eV Ni/ccu a ots a^eAeTs Kal 25ta>- 
TO.S diftfvpe, ^ alffQav6/j.fvos, or\ Kal 
avriv Evo-ffiiov, rbv /xera iroXA^s SO/J.L- 
/macrias rljv niff-riv o^oXoy^ffavra us I8i<a- 
Tf\v SiafidXAci. Kal Tiva. eKwi/ irape- 
AiTre// riva Se TrapeVpeiJ/e. Trai/ra Se 
irpbs rbv oiKeiuv (TKOTTOV /j.a\\ov eeiA?7- 
(j)fu. KO.I eVcuve? rbv Ua,u.(f)i\ou Ev-^ 
atfiiov us a^iriffTOV fj-dprvpa" eTratve? 
5s Kal rbv fiaffiXea ws TO. XpHrriavtov 
r ^fiv $vva.u.evoV /j.e/J.(l)raL 5e rrj 
ifrr) ev Ni/cafa Tri-rrei cts virb i Stw- 
Kal ovSef e TrtcrTO/xeVcoJ e/ 

Kal bi> us ffytfbv Kal 
rvpa, TOVTOV ras (pwas eKoucrioas v 
opa (^fjffl yap 6 E&crejStos, tin rcav irap- 
6i>T(av evrrj Nt/caia rov &eov X^irovpycav 
ol /J.GV, SieTrpeTTOv aofyias \6yip ol Se 
reppoTrjTf Kal 6n o fia(Tt\VS 
irdvras els o^voiav aycav, 6/J.o- 
KarecrT-rjcrev. p. 

h [The friend of Pamphilus.] 
1 cas el Kal iSiwrai -fjaav ol TTJS <rvv6- 
5ov, KareAd/LurovTO Se virb rov Qeov Kal 

s, ov~ 

TO. Ibid., p. 31. 

Socinus statements on the faith of the early Church. 5 

versal, to keep them free from error, at least in the necessary 3, 4. 
articles of the faith. And if any one is unwilling to admit [5] 
this supposition, the argument of Socrates may still be stated 
and presented to him thus ; suppose the Nicene fathers to 
have been unlearned and unlettered men, still they cer 
tainly were for the most part men of piety; and it is in 
credible that so many holy and approved men, meeting 
together out of all parts of the Christian world, could pos 
sibly have dishonestly conspired for the purpose of making 
an innovation on the received faith of the Church, respect 
ing the primary article of Christianity ; especially as, what 
ever may have been their lack of learning in other respects, 
they could not have been ignorant of the elementary doc 
trine of the most holy Trinity, which was wont to be taught 
even to catechumens, nor of what they themselves had re 
ceived from their fathers concerning that subject. 

4. But to come to more modern writers; within the memory 
of our fathers, Faustus Socinus of Siena, in his second letter 
to Radecius k , asserts, that the knowledge of the true doctrine 
concerning God, namely, that the Father alone is very God, 
continued down to the time of the council of Nice. " This 
knowledge l ," he says, "without any controversy ceased not 
to exist even until the period of the council of Nice, and for 
some time afterwards, among those who professed the name 
of Christ. For throughout the whole of that period, as is clear 
from the writings of all who then lived, the Father of Jesus 
Christ alone was believed to be that one true God, of whom 
the Holy Scriptures every where make mention." In this pas 
sage, when he says, that this was the belief of all the ancients 
down to the council of Nice, " that the Father of Jesus Christ 
alone is the one true God," if it be understood of that special 
prerogative of the Father, by which He alone is of Himself 1 * ip^ e so 
very God, then we acknowledge it to be most true. But this a 
does not make any thing in favour of Socinus ; and it is certain [6] 
that the knowledge of this doctrine not only " continued 
until the time of the council of Nice, or some time after," but 
has ever continued in the Church of Christ. But if, on the 

k [Opera, ed. 1656. vol. i. p. 375.] whom He had sent," S. John xvii. 3, 
1 [The knowledge of the Father, as according to the Socinian interpreta- 
" the only true God, and Jesus Christ lion.] 

6 Ejriscopius calumnies against the Council; 

INTROP. other hand,, this proposition, The Father of Jesus Christ 
alone is the one true God," be taken altogether exclusively, 
so as to take away from Christ His true divinity, and to 
deny what was defined by the Nicene council, namely, that 
the Son is very God of very God, (and it is but too evident 
3 that this was what Socinus meant,) then we contend that 
it is manifestly false, that "all the ancients, down to the 
council of Nice, did so believe;" nay, we shall shew that 
they all taught that the Son is of the same nature with the 
Father, and therefore is very God, equally with the Father. 
Accordingly even Socinus himself in another place, i.e. in his 
third letter to this same Matthew Radecius, (contradicting 
himself, as he is apt to do,) confesses, " that almost from the 
very earliest period of the existence of the Church 1 , even to 
our own times, so many men most distinguished for piety 
no less than for learning, so many most holy martyrs of 
Christ, as to be past numbering, have followed that error, 
in other respects most serious, that Christ is the one true 
j God, who created all things, or, at least, was begotten of 
His proper substance." But surely, that the Son of God 
was begotten of the proper substance of God, and is, there 
fore, very God of very God, is the sum and substance of the 
doctrine, which the Nicene fathers asserted against Arius. 
5. M. Simon Episcopius, a most learned theologian in all 

1 other respects, but an utter stranger to ecclesiastical anti 
quity, although he held different views from those of Socinus, 
and even publicly maintained, in opposition to him, the pre- 
existence of the Son, not only before [His birth of] the blessed 
^ Virgin, but also before the creation of the world, still has 
1 spoken in his works in a way altogether shameful and in- 
I tolerable concerning the Creed authoritatively put forth by 
1 the Nicene fathers. For he inveighs (whether with greater 
want of learning or of modesty is not easy to say) against 
[7] the Nicene Creed, and those, framed and composed after 
the third century, which agreed with it ; " As regards the 
other Creeds" (he says n ) " which followed after, which were 
framed at so-called general councils, as they are of more re 
cent date, they are not worthy to be compared with these "- 

111 Ibid., p. 391. " Institutiones Theologicae, iv. 34. [sect. 2-] 

answered by statements of Constantine and Eusebius. 7 

that is, with the creeds and confessions of faith, by which, as 4, 5. 
by marks and watch-words, Christians and Catholics, during 
the first three centuries, used to be distinguished from un 
believers and heretics "And if the truth must be spoken, 
they ought to be regarded as precipitately framed from ex 
citement, if not fury, and a maddened and unblessed 1 party nnalefe- 
spirit, on the part of bishops who were wrangling and con- rlalo> 
tending with one another with excessive rivalry, rather than 
as what issued from composed minds." And that you may 
understand that the Nicene Creed, especially, is glanced at 
by him in this passage, he presently adds, " Who does not 
know, what keen contests, and obstinate bickerings, were 
raised amongst the bishops at the Nicene council ?" Nay, 
rather I would say, who is there that does not perceive that 
all this issues from a mind far from sound or composed? 
Was it so clearly the part of a sober and moderate man, to 
tear and rend with revilings the venerable prelates of that 
most august council ? But to proceed to the matter itself. 
He is not ashamed to say that the Nicene Creed was "pre 
cipitately framed by the bishops out of fury and maddened 
and unblest party spirit." Yet Constantine the emperor, 
who himself presided as moderator in the Nicene council, 
expressly testifies of it, in his Epistle to the Churches, that 
in his presence "every point had there received due exami 
nation." Again, in the letter which he specially addressed [8] 
to the Church of Alexandria, he says, that being present 
amongst the bishops assembled at Nice, as though he were 
one of their number, and their fellow-servant, he had under 
taken the investigation of the truth, in such a way, as that p 
" all points, which appeared to raise a plea either of ambi 
guity 2 ," (for it is clear that this is the true reading from the 
same clause being soon after repeated by Socrates,) " or 
difference of opinion, were tested and accurately examined." 
On this letter of Constantine, Socrates makes these observa- 
tionsQ; "This account the emperor wrote to the people of 

aTravTctT !jsirpo<Tir]Kov(rr]STTvx nKei meriting on the letter, p. 31,] ^ 5ix- 

eera<rea>y. Euseb. de Vita Constant. voias irpofyaffiv 8oKi ysvvav. Socrat. 

iii. 17. Eccl. Hist. i. 9. p. 30. ed. Vales.^ 

7X0T7 a-rravra, KCU aKpiftus erj- 1 6 fjC-v 877 fiarriXcvs roiavra <lypa<p 

oaa $ a^(pi^oXiav, [Bull read Tip AAear5peW ST^UW, p-nvvtov frn o\>x 

ias, as Socrates has it in com- OTTAWS, owSe ws trvx* ysyovtv o opos rrjs 

8 Statements of Zuicker and Sandius, 

INTROD. Alexandria, to inform them that the definition of the faith 

1 oTrAwy. had not been made lightly 1 or carelessly, but that they had 

put it forth after much discussion and strict testing; and 

it was not the case that some points had been mentioned at 

the council, whilst others had been passed over in silence, 

but that all things, which were meet to be alleged for esta- 

8 irpbs aba- blishment of the doctrine 2 , had been mooted, and that the 

My^aTos. ma tter had not been hastily 3 defined, but had been first dis- 

3 OTTAWA cussed with exact accuracy/ Nay, Eusebius himself, an 

author of the utmost integrity, and of temperate disposition, 
and not unfair towards the Arian party, and who seems to 
have had the chief place next to the emperor in the Nicene 
council 1 ", expressly states, that all the bishops subscribed with 
unanimous agreement to the creed drawn up in that council, 
OVK av^erao-TO)Sj " not without examination," not hastily and 
inconsiderately, but after an exact, deliberate, and careful in- 
[9] vestigation, in presence of the emperor, of each separate pro 
position, (and, as he specifies by name, of the clause relating 
to the homoousion, " of one substance.") See Eusebius letter 
to his own diocese, in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. i. 8. [pp. 22, 23.] 
At the opening of the council, indeed, there were considerable 
disputes among some of the bishops, but, as Eusebius also in 
forms us, they were soon and easily settled and lulled by the 
pious and mild address of the emperor. 

6. The anonymous author 8 of a book published some time 
I ago under the title of Irenicum Irenicorum/ &c v boldly pro- 
I claims, that the Nicene fathers " were the framers of a new 
| faith ;" and this he labours to prove, throughout his work, 
4 ) by heaping together such testimonies, out of the remains of 
the ante-Nicene fathers, as have the appearance of being 
inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. This book is said by 
Stephen Curcellseus * to contain " irrefragable testimonies 
and arguments." rhe 1 like web has been woven over again, 
very lately, by Christopher Sandius, in what he calls his 

4 Nucleus Kernel 4 of Ecclesiastical History/ now in the second edi- 

Eccl. Hist. 

trio-Teas aAA STI juera TroAATjs ffvfrr-fi- r Vid. not. Vales, ad Euseb. iii. de 

s KCU 8oKL/j.a(ria.s avrbv inri]y6pv<rav Vita Const., c. 1 1. 

otx OTL nva. ,uej/ e Ae x^, nva 8e s Page 8i. [Daniel Zuicker. See 

air(Tiyf)Qri, aAA 6ri 6ffa irpbs crvtrraffiv the Introduction to the Primitive and 

ToO S6y/j.aros Ae%0^i/at Tj^uo^e, -ndvra. Apostolical Tradition, 2. B.] 
^Ktvf)9r] KOL ori oix OTrAcDs wpiaOr), aAA l Quat. Dissert. Theol. Dissert, i. 

trportpov. Ib., p. 31. ] 18. in fine. 

and of Petavius, on the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 9 

tion, and enriched by a very copious addition of fables and 5 7. 
contradictions. In this book, the shameless author is en 
tirely bent upon persuading such readers as are unlearned, 
and have very little acquaintance with the writings of the 
ancients, that the ante-Nicene fathers, without exception, 
simply held the same doctrine as Arius. 

7. There is, however, one great man fully furnished with 
learning of every kind, "uionysius Petavius. at whom T rtan- 
not sufficiently wonder; for, whilst he professes the utmost 
reverence tor the JNicene council, and on all occasions de 
clares that he receives the faith therein affirmed against the 
Arians, as truly catholic and apostolic, still he freely gives up 

tothe Arians. that which (if true) would very greatly tend to 


confirm their heresy, and to disparage, nay, rather, utterly 
to overthrow, the credit and authority of the council of 
Nice; I mean, that almost all the bishops and fathers before 
the council of Nice held precisely the same opinions as Arius. 
For thus he writes, (Of the Trinity, i. 5. 7.) " Accordingly 
there was this settled opinion in the minds of some of the 
ancients, touching the Godhead and the diversity of Persons 
in It, viz., that there is One supreme, unbegotten, and in 
visible God, who put forth, without, from Himself, as vocal 
and sounding, that Logos u , that is, that Word, which He 
had laid up within (evbidOerov), yet not, like a voice or 
sound, passing away and capable of being dissipated, but 
of such sort, as that, as though embodied and subsist 
ing, It might in turn afterwards create all other things. 
Moreover, they said, that the Word was put forth by the 
Supreme God and Father at the time when He determined 
on creating this universe, in order that He might use Him 
as His assisting Minister. This opinion some intimate more 
clearly, others more obscurely. But these may be specially 
mentioned l ; Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus,Tertullian, and l sed 1st! 
Lactantius. Both these authors, however, and the rest x , whom fere 

" [Qui \6yov, iciest, ^erbum, vel Ser- Origenes, "some others, as Origen." 

monem, quern eV8tcieTOz/, intus inclusum And the passage thus amended is cited 

tenebat, ex sese foras produxerit, voca- by Bp. Bull, iii. 4. 10. B. It is so 

lem et sonantem. Petav. de Trin. i. amended in the later editions of Peta- 

5. 7.] vius. Bp. Bull, however, in the pas- 

x [Instead of the words, reliqui, quos sage referred to, cites only part of Pe- 

commemoravi, "the rest, whom I have tavius correction. See iii. 4. 10. and 

mentioned," Petavius, at the end of Dr. Burton s note on it] 
the volume, substituted aliqui alii, ut 

10 Petavius statements tend to encourage Arianism; 

1 conditio- 

2 hyposta-. 

sine inter- 

5 architec- 
mTtis g ~ 

6 const! tu 
turn et pa 

I have mentioned," (and which of the primitive fathers had he 
not before mentioned?) "thought that the Father was superior 
to the Word, in age, dignity, and power ; and, although they 
asserted, that the Son was of the substance or nature of the 
Father, (in which point alone they made His mode of exist- 
ence ! to differ from that of all other beings, which are properly 
called creatures ;) still they conceived that He had a begin 
ning no less than the creatures ; in other words, that He had 
by no means been a distinct Person 2 from eternity." But in 
the second section of the eighth chapter of the same book he 
speaks still more plainly. "It is most clear," he says, "that 
Arius was a genuine Platonist, and that he followed the 
opinions of those ancient writers, who, while as yet the 
point had not been developed and settled 3 , had fallen into 

tne same error - For the y also tau g nt that the Word was 
produced by God the Father, yet not from eternity, but be 
fore He formed the world, in order that He might use Him 
as His assisting Minister for the accomplishment of that 
work. For they conceived that He had not created all 
things by Himself, and without the intervention of any 
one 4 ; a doctrine which Philo also followed in his book on 
the Crea tor of the World. And therefore I take it to have 
been in a rhetorical and exaggerated way of expression, that 
Alexander, in his epistle, and others of the fathers, who wrote 
against this heresy, complained that Arius had been the 
author of that opinion 5 , the like to which had been unheard 
f oe f re his time ; inasmuch as we have brought forward a 
great number of early writers who previously taught the 
same doctrine as Arius." 

8. If, therefore, reliance is to be placed on Petavius, we shall 
have^to lav down, first, that the heresy of Arius, ^yhich was 
condemned by the Nicene fathers, agreed, in the most im 
portant point, with the f^mTnnnlv^rpnmvprl y^^f ftf thp 

ancient (Jathpjic docters,~who preceded him ; secondly, that 
e doctrine concerning the true divinity of the_Son_wasjiQt 

settle^ and.developed 6 before the council of Nice | thirdly. 
uhat Alexander, and the other Catholics^ who accused Arius, 
as the author of a doctrine which was new and unheard of 
previously in the Catholic Church, said this in a rhetorical 
and an exaggerated way ; that is to say, (if the thing is to be 

from a wish to establish the authority of the later Church. 11 

more plainly stated,) that they uttered a notable falsehood, 7, 8. 
I suppose in the Jesuit fashion, to subserve the Catholic 
cause. Unlucky Arius ! that Petavius was not yet born, 
to becomejjie patron and advocate of his_anse m th~e . 
conflictjit ^Nicaea! 1^ is not, however, easy to say, what 
Petavius had in view when he wrote thus. Some suspect ^[12] 
that in his heart he cherished the Arranheresy himself, and 
wished craftily to pass on the cup to others. This was the 
opinion of Sandius?, whom I have just before mentioned, 
who thus remarks of Petavius ; " But when I recollect that j 
Petavius asserts, that the ante-Nicene fathers taught the 
same doctrines as Arius, and, also, that the articles of the 
faith are to be proved by traditions, I think it impossible 
but that Petavius must have been persuaded of the truth of 
the conclusion, which infallibly follows from these premises, 
namely, that the Trinity which the Arians hold, and not the 
consubstantial Trinity 1 , is an article of the faith. And as to Trinita- 
his wresting the argument to a contrary conclusionT^nrre- ^ 5/uoou 
sume he did this with a twofold viewj^l. To escape the in- j 
conveniences 2 which commonly fall on those who secede from 2 adversa. 
the Roman Catholic to the Arian party ; 2. That the Arians 
might be able to derive a stronger proof of their doctrine 
from a father of the Society of Jesus, as from an adversary ; 
especially since it is sufficient to prove premises, from which 
any person of sound mind can draw such a conclusion, as 
will make it plain what his opinion is about the Trinity." 
These are the words of Sandius ; in my opinion, however, it 
igjrm^ pi par from_ the writings of Petavms~himselt. that the 
conjecture of this most vain writer is entirely false. If indeed 
it must be said that Petavius wrote thus with any sinister 
purpose, and not merely from that bold and reckless temper 

which is his wont in criticising and commenting on the holy 
fathers, I should say that, being a Jesuit, he wished to pro- 
moTeTthe papal, rather than the Arian, interest. For, from 
the fact (for which Petavius contends) that almost all the 
Catholic doctors of the first three centuries fell into the self 
same error which the Nicene council afterwards condemned 
as heresy in the case of Arius, these two things will easily 
follow; 1. That little authority is to be assigned to the 

T Sandius Nucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 156. last edition [1676.] 

specta et 
2 condend 

12 Petavius discredits the authority of the Primitive Fathers. 

INTRODJ fathers of the first three centuries, to whom Reformed 
[13] Catholics are wont to make their chief appeal, as being 
persons to whom the principal articles of the Christian faith 
1 satis pe: - were not as yet sufficiently understood and developed ! ; 
2. That oecumenical councils have the power of framing 2 , or, 

as Petavius says, of settling and developing 3 new articles 

3 constitu4 O f f a jth ; by which principle it may seem that sufficient pro- 
tefaciendi. 1 vision is made for those additions, which the fathers of Trent 
patched on to the rule of faith, and thrust upon the Christian 
world; though not even in this way will the Roman faith 
stand good ; since the assembly at Trent is to be called any 
thing rather than a general council. 

But so it is : the masters of that school have no scruples in 
building their pseudo-catholic faith on the ruins of the faith 
which is truly catholic. The divine oracles themselves, must, 
forsooth, be found guilty of too great obscurity, and the most 
holy doctors, bishops, and martyrs of the primitive Church be 
accused of heresy, in order that, by whatever means, the faith 
and authority of the degenerate Roman Church may be kept 
safe and sound. And yet these sophists (of all things) exe 
crate us as if we were so many accursed Hams, and deriders 
and despisers of the venerable fathers of the Church; wliilstthey 
continually boast that they themselves religiously follow the 
faith of the ancient doctors, and reverence their writings to the 
\ utmost. That Petavius, however, wrote those passages with 
this wicked design, I would not venture to affirm for certain, 
leaving it to the judgment of that God who knoweth the hearts. 
At the same time, what the Jesuit has written, as it is most 
pleasing to modern Arians, (who on this account with one con 
sent look up to and salute him as their patron,) so we confi 
dently pronounce it to be manifestly repugnant to the truth, 
v and most unjust and insulting to the holy fathers, whether 
those of the council of Nice, or those who preceded it. 

9. For this is the plan of the work which I have undertaken, 
to shew clearly that what the Nicene fathers laid down 
[14] concerning the divinity of the Son, in opposition to Arius 
and other heretics, was in substance (although sometimes 
perhaps in other words and in a different mode of expres 
sion) taught by all the approved fathers and doctors of the 
Church, without a single exception, who flourished before the 

The Nicene Creed. 13 

period of the council of Nice down from the very age of 810. 
the Apostles. 

And, O most holy Jesus, the co-eternal Word of the eternal 
Father, I, the chief of sinners, and the least of Thy servants, 
do humbly beseech Thee that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to 
bless this labour of mine, undertaken (as Thou, O searcher 
of hearts, dost know) for Thine honour and the good of Thy 
holy Church ; and to succour and help mine infirmity in this 
most weighty work, for Thine infinite mercy and most ready 
favour towards them that love Thee. Amen ! 

10. The Nicene Creed, as it is quoted by Eusebius 2 in his 
epistle to his own diocese of Cassarea, by Athanasius in his 
letter to Jovian a De Fide, and by other writers, is as follows : 

IIi(7Tvo^v els eva Seov TIaTepa, TravTO/cpaTopa, TrdvTcov 
opaTwv re teal aopdrcov TroiijTrjV KOI els TOV eva Kvptov 
Irjaovv XpiaTov, TOV vlov TOV Seov, yevvrjdevTa e/c TOV Ha- 
Tpos /aovoyevrj, TOVTeaTiv etc TTJS ova-las TOV Harpos* Seov IK 
0eoO, <pcos e/c cfrcoTos, Seov d\,r)0ivov e/c Seov d\rj0Lvov, yevvrj- 
OevTa ov TroirjOevra, ofjuoovaLov TU> Ilarpl, Si ov rd irdvra 
eylvero, rd re ev Tft> ovpav<p, /cal rd eVt r^s 1 7^* TOV 81 r^as 
TOVS dvOpcoTrous K.a\ Sid TTjv fjfJieTepav acoT^jplav KaTe\9ovTa, 
/cal aapicwOevTa, evavOpwTn^davTa, rraOovTa, /cal dvaaTavTa 
Ty TpiTy rjfjiepq, /cal dve\06vTa els TOVS ovpavovs, ep^bfjuevov 
/cplvai ^wvTas /cal veKpovs /cal els TO Hvevp,a TO" A^iov. Tovs 
Be \eyovTas, *Hv Trore, ore OVK r]V, /cal Trplv yevvrjO fjvaiy ovtc 
rjv, /cal OTL e ovtc OVTWV eyeveTO, r) e erepas vTroo-Taaecos rj 
ova tas (frda/covTas elvai, r) KTIO-TOV, rj TpeTTTOv, rj d\\ot,a>Tov [15] 
TOV vlov TOV Seov, TOVTOVS dvaOefJLaTi^ei, rj Ka6o\iKrj /cal CLTCO- 
CTTO\IKTI eK/c^Tjaia i.e., "We believe in one God the Father, 
Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And 
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the 
Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Fa 
ther; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, 
begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, by 
whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and 
which are on earth ; who, for us men and for our salvation, 
came down, and was incarnate, and was made Man, and 
suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into 

z Socrates Eccles. Hist. i. 8. pp. [21, 22.] 

a [ 3. vol. i. p. 781. Bp. Bull follows Athanasius. B.] 

14 Bp. Bull s Propositions. 

INTROD. the heavens, who cometh to judge the quick and the dead. 
And in the Holy Ghost. But as for those who say, There 
6 was a time when He was not ; and, Before He was begotten 
He was not, and, He was made out of what existed not; 
or who assert that the Son of God is of another hypostasis 
or essence, or that He was created, or is capable of change 
or alteration, them the Catholic and Apostolic Church doth 

11. The doctrine respecting the Son of God, contained in 
this Creed, so far as it concerns our present design, may be 
reduced to these heads. 

THE FIRST ; concerning the TrpovTrapgis, or Pre-existence, 
of the Son of God, before [His Incarnation of] the blessed 
Virgin Mary, nay, rather, before the foundation of the 
world ; and concerning the creation of the universe through 
the Son. 

THE SECOND ; concerning the o^oovaiov (" of one sub 
stance") or Consubstantiality, of the Son ; that He is not 
of any such essence as is created or subject to change ; 
but of a nature altogether the same with His Father, that 
is, that He is very God. 

THE THIRD ; concerning the awatSiov, the Co-eternity of 
the Son ; that is, His existence co-eternal with His Father. 

THE FOURTH ; concerning the subordination of the Son to 

i suiaucto . the Father, as to Him who is His author and principle 1 , which 

rem ac j s expressed by the Nicene fathers in two ways, in that, first, 

pium!" they call the Father " One God ;" and then, in that they say 

[16] that the Son is " God of God, Light of Light," &c. 

On all these points we shall make it manifest, that the 
faith of the ante-Nicene fathers is quite in harmony with the 
Nicene Creed ; going through each particular in the order in 
which we have just proposed them. 

BOOK I. 7 





1. WHAT the opinion of the Catholic fathers, who preceded BOOK i 
the council of Nice, was concerning the Pre- existence of the CH A j ] 
Sou of God, we will unfold in the following 


The Catholic Doctors of the first three centuries all with 
one accord taught that Jesus Christ, that is, He who was 
afterwards called Jesus Christ, (before He was made man, 
that is, before His birth, according to the flesh, of the most 
blessed Virgin,) existed in another nature far surpassing 
the human; that He appeared to holy men, as a prelude 
to His Incarnation ; that He always presided over and pro 
vided for that Church, which He was afterwards to redeem 
with His own blood; and that thus from the beginning 
the "whole order of the divine administration 1 " (as Tertullian l disposi- 
expresses it a ) " had its course through Him ;" and that more- tl( 
over, before the foundations of the world were laid He was 
present with God His Father, and that through Him this 
universe was created. 

a [A primordio omnem ordinem divinse dispositionis per ipsum decucurrissc. 
Adv. Prax., c. 16. p. 510.] 

16 Appearances of the Son under the Old Testament. 

ON THE Though this was never denied by the Arians, it may still 
perhaps be worth while to demonstrate it briefly against other 
opposers of the catholic doctrine concerning our Saviour. 
In this proposition we assert two things (in a kind of cli 
max 1 ) concerning the primitive fathers, namely, that they be 
lieved and taught, I. That Jesus Christ, before He became 
man, existed, appeared to holy men, &c. : II. That He was 
present with God the Father before the foundations of the 
world were laid, and that through Him this universe was 

2. As to the former part of the proposition, the fathers of 
the first centuries agree in teaching, that the Son of God 
frequently appeared to holy men under the Old Testament ; 
and further they expound of the same Son of God Himself all 
those appearances, in which the name of Jehovah and divine 
honours are attributed to Him who appears, although at other 
times perhaps He is called an angel. One who is ignorant 
of this, is a stranger to the writings of the fathers. For the 
sake, however, of students in divinity, who perhaps have not 
yet advanced to the reading of the fathers, (with which certainly, 
next after the holy Scriptures, they ought to have commenced 
their theological studies,) I wish to produce here some testi 
monies out of the writings of those ancient authors. 

3. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, shews at 
length that it was Christ who appeared to Abraham at the 
oak in Mamre b ; that He was that Lord, who received from 
the Lord in Heaven, e/c JJarpos rwv o\u>v, that is, from the 
Father of all, to send down upon Sodom a shower of fire and 
brimstone ; who appeared in dreams to Jacob, wrestled with 
him in the form of a man, comforted him in his exile ; who, 
lastly, appeared to Moses in the burning bush d . 

4. Irengeus held the same opinion as Justin concerning 
Him who appeared to Moses and Abraham: for he thus 
writes 6 ; " He, therefore, who was worshipped by the prophets 
as the living God, is the God of the living, and His Word 2 , 

b Page 275. [56. p. 150.] Verbum (A<fyos) ejus, qui et locutus 

c Page 277. [p. 152.] est Moysi, qui et Sadducseos redarguit, 

d p aee 280 282 [58. 59. pp. 155, qui et resurrectionem donavit. Adv. 

] 56 .] Hseres. iv. 11. ed, Paris. 1639. [c. 5. 

e Qui igitur a prophetis adorabatur p. 232.] 

Deus vivus, hie est vivorum Deus, et 

According to Justin, Irencem, Theophilus, Clem. Alex. 1 7 

who also spake unto Moses, and confuted the Sadducees, 
and also bestowed [the gift of] resurrection." And in the 
twelfth chapter of the same book, he says of Abraham ; " In 
Abraham man had before learnt and had been accustomed 
to follow the Word of God. For Abraham according to his 
faith, following the command of the Word of God, with a 
ready mind yielded up his only-begotten and beloved son as 
a sacrifice to God e ." And a little farther on he writes, " The 
Lord therefore, whose day he desired to see, was not unknown 
to Abraham ; nor again was the Father of the Lord [unknown 
to him], for he had learned from the Word of the Lord and 
believed in Him," &c. &c. 

5, Theophilus of Antioch (writing to Autolycus, book ii. f ) 
asserts, that it was the Son of God who appeared to Adam 
shortly after the fall, and that " assuming the person of the 
Father and Lord of all, He came into paradise in the person 
of God and conversed with Adam." I confess that in this 
passage Theophilus seems to speak less honourably than he 
ought of the Son of God ; but this I shall notice elsewhere g . 

6. Clement of Alexandria teaches almost the same as Justin, 
(Pcedag. i. c. 7) h ; where he asserts, that the Instructor 1 (by paedago- 
whom he every where means Christ) appeared to Abraham, gun 
was seen by Jacob, with whom also He wrestled, and lastly 
shewed Himself to Moses. He also in another place teaches, [20] 
that Christ gave to the world the written law of Moses as 

well as the law of nature, (Strom, vii.) 1 ; "Wherefore the 
Lord" (here also he means Christ, as is evident from what 
goes before) "gave His precepts, both the former and the 
latter, drawing them from one fountain, neither through neg- 

e In Abrahamo praedidicerat et as- yivero els rbv irapdo ei(rov eV ^poo-dairy 

suetus fuerat homo sequi Verbum Dei. rov &eov, Kal w/x^Aet rf ASc^t. Ad 

Etenim Abraham secundum fidem calc. Justin. Martyr., ed. Paris. 1C15. 

suam secutus prsecoptum Verbi Dei p. 100. 

prono animo unigcnitum et dilectum B [Book iii. ch. 7. sect. 1 sqq.] 

filium suum concessit sacrificium Deo. h Edit. Paris. 1641. p 110. 

. . . Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus j Sib Kal ras eVroAas as eSwicev, rds 

Abrahse,cujus diem concupivit videre : re irporepas rds re Sevrepas e/c /j.ias 

sed neque Pater Domini : didicerat apvrro/nei os ^77777$ 6 Kvpios, ovre rovs 

eirim a Verbo Domini, et credidit ei, irpb v6/j.ov av6/j.ovs elvai inrepiShv, otfr 

& c - IWd. [A few of these words are avrovs [av rovs Sylburg.] ^ eVa toi/ras 

extant in the Greek, TrpaQv^s rbv tdiov ra fiapfidpov fyiXovotyias a^vidffai ffvy- 

fAovoyevri Kal ayaTTTjrbv Trapa^wpT^cras Qv~ vcopT^cras. ro7s fj.fv yap evroXas, ro^s Se 

f\a[j.$dvui> rb Trpda-otTrois rov ITa- airurriav els r^v irapovaiav K. r. A. 
rpbs Kal Kvpiov r>v o\<av [ovros] irape- [cap. ii. p. 834.] 
BULL. c 

1 ordinem 
suum prse 


2 or " prac 

3 fidem 

18 Tertullian and the rest on the Appearances of the Word ; 

ligence allowing those who lived before the law to be without 
law, nor yet permitting those who heard not the teaching of 
barbarian philosophy to be without restraint, for having given 
precepts to the one, philosophy to the other, He shut up their 
unbelief unto His coming." 

7. In like manner Tertullian writes, (Against the Jews^, 
chap. 9;) " He who used to speak to Moses, was the Son of 
God Himself, and it was He that at all times appeared V 
But he speaks most openly and fully on this point in his 
treatise against Praxeas, chap. 16 1 ; "It is," he says, "the 
Son who hath executed judgment from the beginning, throw 
ing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punish 
ing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon 
Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone, the Lord from 
the Lord/ For He Himself it was, who also at all times 
came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to 
the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream, in 
mirror, in dark saying ; ever from the beginning laying the 
foundation of the course [of His dispensations 1 ], which He 
" meant to follow out unto the end. Thus was He ever learn 
ing 2 , and the God who conversed with men upon earth 
" could be no other than the Word, which was to be made 
flesh. But He was learning, in order to level for us 
the way of faith 3 , that we might the more readily believe 
that the Son of God had come down into the world, if we 
knew that in times past also something similar had been 

8. Let it suffice, as I am anxious to be brief, simply to refer 
to the remaining testimonies. See Origen against Celsus, iii. m 

J Qui ad Mosen loquebatur, ipse erat 
Dei Filius, qui et semper videbatur. 
Cont. Jud., p. 194. 

k See also his book de Game Christi, 
c. 6. [p. 311 ;] and his Treatise against 
Marcion. ii. 27. [p. 395;] and iii. 6. [p. 
400 ;] and his Treatise against Prax. c. 
14. [p. 507.] 

1 Films est qui ab initio judicavit, 
turrim superbissimam elidens, linguas- 
que dispeitiens, orbem totum aquarum 
violentia puniens, pluens super Sodo- 
mam et Gomorram ignem et sulphu- 
rem, Dominus a Domino. Ipse enim 
et ad humana semper colloquia descen- 

dit, ab Adam usque ad patriarchas et 
prophetas in visione, in somnio,in spe- 
culo, in aenigmate, ordinem suum prae- 
struens ab initio semper, quern erat 
persecuturus in finem. Ita semper 
ediscebat, et Deus in terris cum homi- 
nibus conversari non alius potuit, quam 
Sermo, qui caro erat futurus. Edisce 
bat autem, ut nobis fidem sterneret, ut 
facilius crederemus Filium Dei de- 
scendisse in seculum, si et retro tale 
quid gestum cognosceremus. Adv. 
Prax., p. 509. 

m Ed. Cant. 1658. [ 1*. P- 456.] 

belief in His Pre -existence implied in this view. 19 

p. 119, and vi. p. 329 n ; Novatian on the Trinity, cc. 25 BOOK i. 
27; Cyprian, Tract 3. De Simplicitate Prcelatorumv. The ^Jjg 1 
Catholic Doctors of the Church after the council of Nice agree ~~ 
on this point with the ante-Nicene Fathers. See Athanasius, 
(Orat. iv. against the Arians;) Hilary, (books iv. and xii. on 
the Trinity ;) Philastrius, (Heresy 84 ;) Chrysostom, (Homily 
to the people of Antioch, chap. 8, and on the seventh chapter of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews ;) Ambrose, (book i. On those who 
are Initiated, chap. 3 ;) Augustine, (Epistles 99, 11 1,1 12;) Leo, 
(Epistle 17;) Theodoret, (Question 68. on Genesis, &c.) 

9. I am aware that there are some who ridicule these 
views, as the mere dreams and dotings of the good fathers, 
and who are too self-satisfied, laying it down as certain, 
that the Angel who appeared of old to the patriarchs and 
holy men and was worshipped by them, was only a created 
angel, fulfilling the office of an ambassador in behalf of 11 pro. 
the most high God, and bearing His name and character 2 , 2 person am 
To such I answer; 1. Supposing that the fathers were l^ nm 
in error on that point, still this remains fixed and certain, 
that they themselves believed that our Saviour Jesus really 9 
existed before His birth, according to the flesh, of the 
most blessed Virgin; which is enough for our purpose. 
But it will be said, it is very likely that they, who erred in i~221 
their premises, were also deceived in their conclusion. I grant 
itj if they had built their conclusion only upon these pre 
mises, which are supposed to be false. But in this in 
stance the case is quite different. For the fathers, although 
they sometimes establish the pre-existence of the Son of God 
by this argument, do yet throughout their writings 3 intimate 3 pas sim. 
that they were led to this view from other very plain testi 
monies of Scripture, as well as from the tradition of the Apo 
stles ; this we shall hereafter shew clearly in its own time and 
place. But, 2ndly, I have, and always shall have, a religious 
scruple in interpreting the Holy Scriptures against the stream 
of all the fathers and ancient doctors, except when the most 
evident proofs compel me to do so ; this, however, I do not 
believe will ever happen. For certainly the consentient judg 
ment of antiquity, especially of primitive antiquity, ought 

11 [ 78. p. 691.] P [This treatise is not believed to be 

[Page 723, &c.] Cyprian s. B.] 

c 2 

20 The statement that an Angel appeared consistent 

ON THE to outweigh the force of many probabilities and reasonings 
PRE-EX- f rom ijfceiihoocL But it will be said, there are in this instance 


OF THE the most evident reasons for thinking otherwise. Well then, 

SON. - 

let us see. 

10. The first objection they urge is, that in Exodus iii. 4 
we read, that God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush ; 
and, in Exod. xix. 20, and xx. 1, that God gave him the 
law ; whilst yet it is clear from other passages of Scripture, 
that it was a created angel, who in each case appeared and 
spoke to Moses. For by the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, ii. 2, the law is called " the word spoken by an 
gels," with which compare Gal. iii. 19. Stephen also, Acts 
vii., clearly says that an angel appeared to Moses in the 
bush, ver. 30, and that the law was ministered by the dispen 
sation of angels, ver. 53. They add, that in that well-known 
appearance to Abraham in Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1, 2, although 
one of the three is distinguished by the name of Jehovah, yet 
it is certain that all the three were angels ; since the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly says/ that they were 
angels whom Abraham and Lot hospitably entertained, xiii. 2. 

11. My answer is; when the fathers agree in asserting, 
[23] that the angel who appeared to Abraham and Moses, and to 

whom the name of Jehovah and divine honours are attributed, 
was the Son of God, their statement admits of two senses ; 
namely, either that it was God, (that is, the Son of God,) de 
signated by the name of an angel, inasmuch as He assumed 

speciem. a body or visible appearance such as angels are accustomed 
to use ; or that the Son of God was in the angel ; that is, that 
it was an angel who assumed the bodily shape, and that the 
Son of God was in the angel ; I mean, by a special mode of ac- 

per assis- companiment 2 and presence. On the former hypothesis, the 
objection alleged is met by saying that the Son of God is called 
an angel also, that is to say, " the Angel of the covenant / and 
that in these appearances He is called an angel, because He 
imitated the manner and way in which angels used to appear 
to men ; moreover, that it is not true that it was a created 
angel who spoke to Moses in the bush and on mount Sinai ; 
nor is this proved from its being said both by Stephen and 
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the law of 
Moses was " given by angels/ in the plural number ; because 

with the appearance of the Word, in two ways. 21 

nothing hinders but that God might have been Himself BOOK i. 
present on Sinai, although, to set forth His majesty, He * g^J" 
was attended by a multitude of angels : nay, from Deut. 
xxxiii. 2, and Ps. Ixviii. 17, it most certainly appears that 
God Himself was present by a special presence on mount 
Sinai amongst those myriads of angels. And in the case 
of the appearance of the three, who turned aside to [visit] 
Abraham, [we should say] that two of them indeed were 
created angels, and that this is quite enough to preserve 
the truth of the Apostle s words in Heb. xiii. 2 ; but that 
the third was the Son of God, since even Abraham recog 
nised in Him the marks of the Divine Majesty, and therefore 
interceded with Him as with the supreme Judge, that, if it 
were possible, He might delay the destruction of the five 
cities [of the plain]. And very much in this way does 
the celebrated Andrew Rivet (among others) answer the ob- [24] 
jection in his Commentary on Hosea xii. 4 6. The second 
hypothesis, however, is adopted by many ancient writers, 
both Jewish and Christian. Trypho the Jew, in Justin q , 
contends, that in the appearance to Moses in the burning 
bush, two were present together, God and an angel ; that it 
was the angel which appeared in the flame of fire, whilst it 
was God, (that is to say, in the angel,) who spoke with 
Moses. Justin answers him, that this may be allowed with 
out affecting the truth of his hypothesis that it was the 
Son of God, I mean, who spoke to Moses ; although he 
afterwards tries to shew that the Son of God alone appeared 
to Moses. And indeed the view of Trypho seems to have 
been received and approved amongst the more ancient Jews. 
For even Stephen himself clearly teaches that it was an angel 
which appeared to Moses in the bush, Acts vii. 30, but that 
it was God Himself who spoke these words to Moses, " I am 
the God of thy fathers," &c., Acts vii. 31, 32. Compare 
Exod. iii. 2, with verses 4 6. Clement of Alexandria, the 
same who affirms that He who was over the children of 
Israel in the wilderness, was the Instructor *, that is, the Son i Paedago- 
of God, expressly teaches, and that in the very same passage 1 ", gum - 

Dialog, cum Tryphon., pp. 282, 283. cr-Hjo-as rov \6yov 8iWju/, . . . -rb 
[c. 60. p. 156, &c.] a/a>,ua rb KvpiaKbv fyvXar-rcav. Pseda- 

r rr)v tvayye \iois nal r^ffj^viov firi- gog. i. 7. pp. 110, 111, [p. 133.] 

)N - 

22 The joint Presence of the Word and of the Angel. 

that He who conducted Moses was an angel, " setting over 
him the evangelizing 1 and guiding power of the Word," and 
OF THE reserving the dignity of the Lord." And a little after- 
wards h e adds, that, under the Old Testament, " the Word 
was an angel 8 ," that is, appeared to men by means of 
angels. In which sense also he, by and by, calls the Son 
10 " the mystic Angel*," as concealing, as it were, at that period, 
His divine majesty under the guise of an angel. The same 
view was entertained by many of the fathers who wrote 
[25] after the council of Nice. Thus Athanasius (Orat. iv. against 
the Arians u ), speaking concerning the angel which appeared 
to Moses in the bush, says, " He who appeared was an angel, 
but it was God who spoke in him." Jerome (on chap. iii. 
of the Epistle to the Galatians) says x , " But in that he asserts 
that the law was ordained by angels, this is what he would 
have understood, that, whenever throughout the Old Testa 
ment an angel is first said to appear, and afterwards God, as 
it were, is introduced speaking, it is really an angel, one of 
many ministering spirits, whoever he is, who appears, but it 
is the Mediator who speaks in him, who says, I am the God 
of Abraham/ " &c. Augustine (against Maximinus, book iii. 
near the end?) says, " Who was it, I ask, that appeared to 
Moses in the flame, when the bush is burning, but was not 
consumed? Although Holy Scripture itself declares, that 
in this case also it was an angel which appeared, in the 
words, But there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord 
in a flame of fire out of the bush/ yet who doubts that 
God was in the angel?" Gregory (Preface to Job, ii. z ) says, 

8 \6yos &-yjf\os fy. [Id. ihid : ] batur et non urebatur ? quanquam et 

t uvvriKbs &yye\os. [Id. ibid.] illic angelum apparuisse Scriptura ip- 

u 6 iixv Qairifievos i\v &yyc\os t> 5e sa declarat, dicens, Apparuit autem illi 

ebs eV avT$ e AaAei. Tom. i. p. 467. angelus Domini in flamma ignis de rubo ; 

[Orat. iii. 14. p. 563.] in angelo autem Deum fuisse quis du- 

* Q U od autem ait, lex ordinata per bitat? [Lib. ii. 11. vol. vm. p. 742.] 
an*elos, hoc vult intelligi, quod in om- z Angelus, qui Mosi apparuisse de- 

ni Veteri Testamento, ubi angelus pri- scribitur, modo angelus, modo Do- 

mum visus refertur, et postea quasi minus memoratur; angelus videlicet 

Deus loquens inducitur, angelus qui- propter hoc, quod exterius loquendo 

dem vere ex ministris pluribus, quicun- serviebat ; Dominus autem dicitur, quia 

que sit, visus ; sed in illo Mediator lo- interius prsesidens loquendi efficaciam 

quatur qui dicat, Ego sum Deus Abra- ministrabat. Cum ergo loquens ab in 

to, &c. Ed. Par. 1627. [torn. vii. p. teriori regitur, et per obsequium an- 

4,41 1 gelus, et per inspirationem Dominus 

r Qusero, inquit, quis apparuerit nominatur. [Grjg. M. vol. i. p. 8.] 
Mosi in igne, quando rubus inflamma- 

A mere angel would not receive Divine Honour. 23 

" The angel which is described as appearing to Moses, is 
sometimes mentioned as an angel, at other times as the Lord ; 
as an angel, that is, as it seems, by reason of his doing service 
by outward speech ; but yet he is called the Lord, because it 
was He who, presiding within, supplied the power * of speech ; efficacia. 
as then he who speaks is guided by Him who is within, he hath 
both the name angel by reason of his service, and the name 
Lord by reason of His inspiration." With these agree Ful- 
gentius (against Maximus) and other writers ; and this opinion 
of the ancients seems to me to receive complete confirmation 
from that passage in Exodus xxiii. 20, where God, that is, the 
Son of God, according to the opinion of all primitive anti 
quity, speaking to Moses, promises that He will send His [26] 
angel before His people, through the wilderness, and that " His 
Name shall be 11TO, in the midst of him V It was, there- 2 m medio 
fore, in very truth an angel who went before the people of ejus 
Israel to the promised land ; but yet an angel in whom the 
Son of God placed His name, that is, His own divine virtue 
and power; in whom, that is to say, He was Himself pre 
sent in some peculiar manner. However, from the words of 
Trypho in Justin, which we have just now quoted, it is clear 
that that notion never entered into the minds of the 
ancient Jews, which in our age has been entertained by 
certain learned men among Christians ; namely, that He 
who appeared and spoke to Moses in the bush and on 
mount Sinai was a mere angel, who called himself the God 
of Abraham, and willingly permitted divine worship to be 
paid to him under the name of God. Surely such an opinion 
is too absurd, and is simply horrible. For it is impious to 
suppose that angels ever practised the art of actors, and 
that God ever communicated to them His incommunicable 
Name, or such a representation as that by it a creature 
should take to himself 3 all that belongs to God. Rightly 3 sibi at- 
also does the learned Cameron remark a ; "It is true advo- tr 
cates do often personate their clients ; but it has never been 
even heard of that any ambassador, in setting forth the 
mandates of his prince, spoke in any other than the third 
person, My sovereign says this/ Of which usage we have 
a remarkable testimony in the prophets, with whom, as it is 

a In Annot. ad Heb. ii. 2. 

Principle on which this interpretation is based. 







[al. "ful- 


well known, the customary formula of expression is, Thus 
saith the Lord/ Nay, even in visions angels acknowledge 
that they are sent V Hence Grotius himself allows in one 
place , that he, who promulgated the ancient law on Sinai, 
was indeed a special 1 angel, accompanied by a retinue of 
others ; not however a mere angel, but one with whom the 
Word was present. 

12. Let it be granted then, you will say, that it was God 
who by an angel, or under the figure of an angel, appeared 
and spake to holy men in the Old Testament ; yet by what 
reasoning, we ask, were the (ancient) doctors led to believe 
that this was the Son of God? I answer, by the best of 
reasoning, if I am not mistaken, which they had learnt from 
apostolical tradition. I mean this ; God the Father, as He 
at first framed and created the world through His Son, so 
through the same Son did He afterwards manifest Himself to 
the world. Therefore the Son of God, although in the last 
times, through the dispensation of His incarnation, He has 
at length held familiar intercourse with mankind, still al 
ways, even from the very earliest period of its existence, pre 
sided over the Church ; and even under the Old Testament, 
though by a hidden and secret dispensation, shewed Himself 2 
to holy men. Clement of Alexandria (Padagog. i. ll d ) says; 
"Of old time, then, the Word performed the office of instructor 3 
through Moses, and afterwards also through the prophets." 
Origen (against Celsus, lib. vi. e ) writes thus ; "It was not as if 
God had awaked out of a long sleep, and sent Jesus to the 
human race; for although He (for good reasons) assigned unto 4 
this time the dispensation of the Incarnation, yet had He 
always been a benefactor to mankind ; for nothing of what is 
good among men was ever done, except by the Word of God 
visiting the souls of those who, even for a little while, were 
capable of receiving such influences of the Divine Word." 

b Vide Athanas. Orat. iv. cent. Ari- 
an., p. 466. [Orat. iii. 12. vol. i. p. 561.] 
c Ad Gal. iii. 19. 

ovv 8ia Mwtfecos 6 \6yos 

Pag. 132. [p. 155.] 

e oix ^o" 71 " 6 ? air b /J-aKpov virvov Sia- 
vacrTas 6 ebs eire^e rbv lyvovv T$ 
7/ei T&V avdpwTrwi , TTJU /j.ev Kara rfyv 
vojj.iav vvv Si fv\6yovs 


ed. Ben.], del Se rb yzvos TWV avdpw- 
TTCOJ/ evepyeTya ai Ta ovSev yap TGOV kv 
avdpcoTTois Ka\&v yeyevriTai, fj.^) TOV 
Oeiov \6yov eVtSTj/^a cwTOS TCUS if/u- 
X a ^ s T&V Kav b\(yov Kaipbv SeSi/j/T/^ie- 
vuv 5ea(r0cu ras TotcxtrSe TOV Oeiov \6- 
yov eVe^eias. Pag. 329. [ 78. p. 691. ] 
Vide et lib. iii. p. fl9. [ 14. p. 456.] et 
lib. iv. p. 165. [ 6. p. 506.] 

Apparent opposition to Heb. i. 2 explained. 25 

Tertullian, however, expresses himself most plainly and fully BOOK i. 
(against Praxeas, c. 15. [p. 509 f ]); "It was the Son who was ^YZ.Vi. 
always seen, and the Son who has always worked by the rr~ 
authority and will of the Father, for l the Son can do nothing 

of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do/ &c Thus, all 

things were made by the Son, and without Him was not any 
thing made/ And think not that only the works which per 
tain to the [creation of the] world were made through the 
Son, but also whatever since that time has been done by 
God/ Afterwards, c. 16 g , follow the words which we have 
quoted above; "The God, who conversed with men upon 
earth, could have been no other than the Word, which was 
to be made flesh." 

13. There remains a second objection, which is held up by 
certain very learned men as unanswerable 1 , and it shall beMnvictam. 
discussed by me in but few words. They urge then, that this 
opinion of the fathers is diametrically opposed to most ex 
press words of Holy Scripture. For, say they, the inspired 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 1, 2, plainly says that 

" God, who in divers manners spake in times past unto the 
fathers and prophets, hath at length in the last days spoken 
[unto men] through His Son :" but it is evident that by the 
last days is meant the age of the Gospel ; therefore before 
that time the Son of God had never spoken, or God through 
His Son ; otherwise, the author would not have been correct 
in opposing the last days of the Gospel to the early period 
of the ancient law, if the Son of God, or God through the 
Son, has appeared and spoken in both. 

14. Ludovicus de Tena proposes this objection, and an 
swers it in words to the following effect 11 ; "Paul only [29] 
makes a difference between this last appearance of the 

f Filius visus est semper, [Filius qui caro erat futurus. [Ibid. c. 16.] 
conversatus est semper] et Filius ope- h Respondeo Paulum solum ponere 

ratus est semper, ex auctoritate Patris discrimen inter hanc ultimam appari- 

et voluntate, quia Filius nihil a semet- tionem Filii Dei, et priores V. T. quia 

ipsp potest facere, nisi viderit Patrem istse fiebant in creatura corporali, non 

facientem, &c. ... Sic omnia per Fili- hypostatice unita Filio Dei ; etitame- 

um facta sunt, et sine illo factum est dio supposito create corporeo, imo et 

nihil. Nee putes sola opera mundi per angelico, loquebatur Filius Dei. At 

Filium facta, sed et quoe a Deo exinde vero in ilia apparitione Verbi incarnati, 

gesta sunt. Tert. adv. Pi axeam, c. 15. de qua asserit, novissime locutus est no- 

P- 509. Us in Filio, non mediat aliquod suppo- 

s Deus in terris cumhominibus con- situm creatum, neque corporeum, ne- 

versari non alias potuit, quatn Sermo, que angcliciun ; sed Verbum divinum 

26 The Word Incarnate spoke without any intervening Person. 

ON THE Son of God, and the earlier ones of the Old Testament, 
PRE-EX- ^ n j/kat tn 0se were made in a created body, not united 
OF THE hypostatically to the Son of God ; and so the Son of God 
- S poke through the medium of a subject l , created, corpo- 
1 supposito. real ^ nay ratner angelic. But in that appearance of the 
incarnate Word, of which he asserts, < He hath in these 
last days spoken unto us by His Son/ no created subject 
intervenes, either corporeal or angelic, but the Divine Word 
immediately, without the intervention of any subject, spoke 
unto men. Nor is it any difficulty that this had been done 
through the medium of His human nature, because that na 
ture was without any subject of its own, and was immediately 
united to the Word as its subject. Now this is the legitimate 
sense of the words, and thus the contrast spoken of, when 
rightly explained, holds good, and the superiority of the gos 
pel over the ancient law." This answer of the very learned 
writer, though barbarous so far as the expressions are con 
cerned, (after the fashion of the schools,) is nevertheless 
sound and solid in sense, and, as is evident from the testi 
monies adduced a little above, in agreement with the mind 
of the ancient fathers. To this may be added the following : 
Justin Martyr in the Apology for the Christians, which in 
the common editions is called the first, though in reality it 
is the second, speaks thus of the Word or Son of God 1 ; 
" For He was and is the Word, who is in every thing ; who 
foretold what should come to pass, both through the pro 
phets, and through Himself, when He had become of like 
passions with us, and had taught us these things." In this 
passage Justin teaches, that the Word or Son of God under 
the Old Testament manifested Himself to the prophets in a 
certain manner, and through them to others; but that in 
the last days, having taken our nature unto Himself, He 
2 P erseip- by Himself 2 delivered unto us His heavenly doctrine; and 
sum> that herein especially consists the excellence of the gospel 
over the old law. To this agrees Clement of Alexandria, 

immediate immediatione suppositi lo- gelii supra legem veterem. In cap. i_. 

quebatur hominibus. Neque obstat, Epist. ad Heb. difficult. 2. 2. [p. 32. J 

quod hoc fuerat media humana natura, * \6yos yap i\v KO.L e(TTiv 6 eV Travrl 

quia bsec caruit proprio supposito, et &v, Kal Sia TWV TrpotyyTcoi TrpoeiTrais ra 

immediate fuit unita supposito Verbi. /xeAAoi/ra yiv^Qai, KOI St^ iavrov 

Et bic est legitimus sensus homm ver- iraOovs yevo/j.evov Kal 8iSaai/TOS TCWI 

borum, et sic manet recte explicata Pag. 48, 49. [Apol. ii. 10. p. 95.] 
dicta contrapositio, et excellentia evan- 

Scripture evidence for the truth of this view. 27 

(Paedag. i. 7 k ;) "For the Lord was, indeed, the Instructor 1 BOOK 
of His ancient people by means of Moses, but by Himself 
is He the guide of His new people, face to face." And a 
little after ; " Previously indeed for the elder people there 
was an elder covenant, and the law schooled the people with 
fear, and the Word was an angel ; but now unto His new 
arid younger people a new and younger covenant has been 
given, and the Word has come to be [unto us], and fear 
has been turned into love, and that mystic Angel is born, 
even Jesus/ And no other was the meaning of Tertullian, 
when, in the passage which we have quoted a little above 1 , 
he teaches, " That the Son of God came down to converse 
with men, from Adam to the patriarchs, in vision, in dream, 
in mirror, in dark saying," &c. 

15. Thus no solid objection can be brought out of Holy Scrip 
ture against this opinion of the ancient fathers. Let us now 
enquire, whether the Holy Scriptures do not plainly enough 
favour this view. Concerning the angel who led the people of 
Israel in the wilderness, (of whom it is written, " Beware of Exod. 
His face, and obey His voice, provoke Him not, for He will & x c * m 2 
not spare thee, nor pardon thy transgressions ; for My name 
is in Him,") St. Paul expressly teaches, that He was the Son 
of God, who afterwards was called Christ. " Neither let us 1 Cor. x. 9. 
tempt Christ," he says, "as some of them also tempted, and [31] 
were destroyed of the serpents m ." At least these words shew 
that Christ was present with the children of Israel in the 
wilderness, and was tempted by them. The heretic Socinus, 
indeed, here objects, that it is written by St. Paul, " Let us 
not tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted," but that it 1 2 
is not written, "as some of them tempted Christ;" and 
therefore that the sentence may be very suitably filled up with 
another word, for instance " God ;" but this is clearly futile. 
For very many instances of this elliptical mode of expression are 
to be found in the Scriptures; thus St. John viii. 56, " Abra- 

Kal yap -ffv us a\r)d>s Sift /J.GV M&>- \6yos yeyevrjTai, Kal 6 <p60os els ayd- 

TraiSayaybs o Kvpios rov Aaov rov irt]v /jLtrartrpairrat, Kal 6 /j.vcrriKbs e/ce?- 

iraAaiou" Si avrov Se, rov veov KadTjyz- vos ayy*\os Ir/croCs riKrerai. ?<*& 

ILUV AaoG, trp6(rcaTrov -npbs Trp6a<atrov. 110, 111. [p. 132.] 
. . . rb lUey ovv Tryx^re/joz/ rcS irpeafivTepCf) l [ 7.] 

Aa< 7rp(j/3uTepa 5ia6-nKrj -ffv, Kal VO/AOS m /xrjSe eKireipafafjizv rbv Xpurrbv, 

firaiSayuyei rltv \abv /uera (p6f3ov, Kal Kadws Kai rives avTwv *irtipa<rav, Kal virb 

\6yos ayyeAos i\v Kaivcp Se Kal vecp \ay rwv ofyewv uTr&Xovro. 1 Cor. x. 9. 
Kaivri Kal vta 5ia07}/c7/ SeSftyrjrai, Kal 6 

28 It was Christ whom the Israelites tempted. 

THE ham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw ;" there is norepetU 
tion of "and he saw My day," but that is understood. But 
OF THE we have a most apposite instance of this kind of expression 
in Deut. vi. 16 ; " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, 



[Massah.] as thou temptedst in the place of temptation;" where it is 
obvious that the latter clause refers to Him, whose name 
was just before mentioned, " the Lord thy God," without 
any repetition of it. Besides, we might ask the heretic in turn, 
why it was not added, " as some of them tempted God n ?" 
Surely, if that be the sense of this verse, which the heretic 
fixes on it, no reason can be given for the ellipsis ; but, if 
the meaning of the passage be that which we give it, as it 
certainly is, the reason for the ellipsis may most easily be 
given. For it would have been a much more unusual form 
of expression if the name of Christ had been repeated. 
Lastly, the particle KOI, " also," in this place is of great force ; 
as shewing that the words of the Apostle must necessarily 
be so taken, as if he meant, " that Christ was tempted 
in the wilderness by the Israelites." For to what purpose 
would it have been for him to have said, " as also," when in 
the former clause there was no mention made of God, but 
[32] only of Christ? Accordingly Grotius , perceiving with his 
usual acuteness that this quibble of the Socinians is clearly 
absurd, himself cast about for some other way of escaping 
[the force of the words.] " The clause," he says, " must ne- 

1 omnino. cessarily 1 be read yLt^Se K7rei,paa)fjLv rbv Qeov, neither let 

us tempt God/" Is it really so ? must it be so read " neces 
sarily?" Let us have a reason. "Because," he says, "that 
most ancient MS." (the Alexandrine p ) "so reads the pas 
sage." But surely those most ancient MSS., which were 

2 vetus La- use d by the Syriac, Arabic, and the old Latin 2 translators, 

and by Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, all have 
Xpio-rbv, (Christ,) not @ebv, (God :) and this reading too 

n Vide Cameron in loco. Codex Germanensis, both Greek-Latin 

In loco. MSS., and that Vulgate which seems 

P And the Ethiopia version of the to have been earlier than the time of 

New Test. (Mill in loco.) Certainly as Marcion ; I am quite of opinion that 

there agree with the printed text, not the Apostle himself wrote Xpurrbv, 

only Irenseus, Theodotus in CTTITO- which was altered into ebv by some 

fiats, and very many Greek and Latin daring critic, who could not see the 

writers, but also all the manuscript truth of the common reading, that the 

copies without exception, and particu- Israelites tempted Christ in the wil- 

larly the Codex Claromontanus and the derness. Id. ib. BOWYKK. 

Critical objections answered. 29 

is followed by all those other copies which are presented 
to us in the Polyglott Bibles, except that the Lincoln has 
Kvpiov, which also is in the New Testament a name of ~ 
Christ q . And the Codex Alexandrinus is not of so great au 
thority as that it should be set against so general an agree 
ment. This very distinguished man, however, adduces an 
other reason; "Christ/ he says, "is the name of a man, 
who, it is certain, did not exist at that time." The answer 
is most easy. Christ is here put for the Son of God, who 
afterwards in the fulness of time, when He had taken unto 
Him human nature, was called Christ ; so that there is here 
a synecdoche, as it were, of the whole, as in other passages of 
Scripture r . By the same sophism, Grotius also eludes the [33] 
force of a most express testimony to the divinity of the Son 
of God, that in Col. i. 16. [" By Him were all things created, 
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, 
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or 
powers; all things were created by Him, and for Him."] 
"It is certain," he says, "that all things were created by the 
Word ; but the preceding context shews that the Apostle is 
speaking of Christ, which is the name of a man. So that it 
would be more correct to render the word d/cTio-Orj, ordinata 
sunt were placed in a new condition." But if these words 
of the Apostle do not speak of a creation, properly so called, 
I should believe that Holy Scripture laboured under inex 
plicable difficulty, and that no certain conclusion could be 
deduced from its words, however express they might seem 
to be. 

16. From these things, however, it is clear, that, what the 
primitive fathers taught concerning the appearances of the 
Word, or Son of God, to the patriarchs and saints under the 
Old Testament, were no vain imaginations of their own, but 
derived from the very teaching of the Apostles. There is this 
further (which I put before the reader as especially useful for 
him to observe) that neither were the Apostles of Christ the 
first to teach these truths, but that they derived them from the 
ancient cabala or tradition of the Jews ; or, at least, that those 

<i MS. in the possession of Dr. J. Co- shews that Kvpiov is found in several 

vel ; Theodoret and Epiphanius have MSS. B.] 

Kvptov. BOWYER. [The Slavonic ver- r See Vossii Instit. Orat. iv. 7, 
sion confirms ebf ; and Griesbach 

30 View of the Jews, that it was the Word who visited 

ON THE things which the Apostles were taught on this subject, by the 
PRE-EX- ri ns pi ra tion ofl the Holy Ghost, agrees well with that tradi- 

ISTENCE *~ * ~* 

OF THE tion. Thus Philo the Jew, just like St. Paul, explains the angel, 

who led the children of Israel in the wilderness, of the Word 
and first-begotten Son of God, through whom God directs 
and governs the universe. In his book Of Agriculture 8 there 
is a most express passage ; " For God as a shepherd and king 

1 MKW- guides by a certain order and law, as if they were a flock, 
earth and water, air and fire, and again whatsoever they con 
tain, plants and living beings, whether mortal or divine ; the 
nature of the heavens too, and the circuits of the sun and 
moon, as well as the turnings and harmonious movements of 
[34] the other stars; having set over them His true Word 2 , even His 

*8p6ov \6- fi rs t-begotten Son, to undertake the care of this sacred flock, 
as some vicegerent of a powerful king; for in a certain place 

Ex. xxiii. it is said, Behold I am, and I will send My angel before thy 
face to keep thee in the way/ " Philo also understands, as 
the ancient Christians did, that God, who appeared to Adam 
in paradise after his fall, to Moses in the bush, and also to 
Abraham, was the Word. For thus he writes in his work 
13 Of Dreams 1 ; "The sacred Word to some enjoins as a king 
with authoritative command what they ought to do; whilst 
others He instructs in what will profit them, as a teacher his 
intimate disciples; to others as a counsellor suggesting the 
best advice, He greatly aids such as of themselves know 
not what will be for their good ; again, to others as a friend, 

s Ku.Qa.irep yap nva irol^vriv, yyv, Kal apiaras. rovs TO ffvfiupepov e eavruv 

vScap, Kal aepa, Kal irvp, Kal o<ra eV rov- OVK eiSoVas /J.eya </>eAe? TO?S Se us 

rots <f)vrd re av Kal "wa, rd ptv Qv^rd, fy(\os eirieiKws Kal perd ireiOovs TroAAa 

TO. 8e 0e?a, eVt Se ovpavov (piiaw, Kal Kal rSiv dpp^rcaf dvatyepei, &v ovdev av- 

y\iov Kal ae\T}VT]S irpi6dovs, Kal TU>V rwv o.riXfff rov tiraKOvffai delis e<rTi 8^ 

a\Aow affTfpuv r ponds TC af> Kal xoptias 6re Kal Trvi^ddverai nvwv, faffirep^ rov 

evappoviovs, cos iroi^v Kal fiaffiAevs 6 ASa^t TO, irow e?; . . . eVeiSav pfo rot 

0eos ay ft Kara SiKTjj/ Kal v6(j.ov, irpoarf]- irpbs rb riav <pi\<av eA0?7 ffw&piov, ov 

aajjitvos rbv bpQbv avrov \6yov Trpwr6- Trporepcis &pxfrai \4yeiv, $) l/caorof av- 

yovov vibv, tts r^v eTTi/xeAetat 1 rys lepas ru>v oj/aKaAeVat Kal oi>ofj.a<rrl Trpoarei- 

ravrys aye\ris, old ris fj.eyd\ov jSatrt- irt iv, iva ra &ra aQpoicravres, [avopQid- 

\ewsv7rapxos SiaSeferat. Kal yap efpj- (ravres MSS. et Potter,] jfffvxtif ltd 

rai iroV I5ov eyca ei/jLi,aTro(rre\wayy- Trpoaoxy XP^/" ei/0 > T ^ v 6fff/j.wSov^.evuv 

\6v IJLOV els Trp6ff(air6v ffov rov (pv\d^ai els a\f)crrov \kvr\u,t\v aKovuffiv eirel Kal 

<re eV rfj o5^. De Agric., p. 195. edit. trepwQi. \eyerai, cncoTra Kal &Kove row- 

Par. 1640. [vol. i. p. 308.] rov rbv rp6irov eirl rys jSarou MCOO-TJS 

1 6 iepbs \6yos rots / a>s jSaatAeus avaKaXelrai. ws yap eT5e, <pri<T\v, on 

a XP^I icp&rreiv e | eTrirdyfJiaros irapay- irpoadyei i Se?j/, eKaXeo ev avrbv 6 Qebs 

7eAAef TO?S 8e us yvupi/j-ois Si5cto-/caAos eK rfjs Qdrov, \eywv Mcavafi, Mcoi)cr^ 6 

rd Trpbs &(pe\iai vcpyye tTai rots Se us Se etTre ri eo~riv; Afipadp Se, /c.r.A. 

yvu^as ela-nyov^evos rds De Somn., pp. 593, 594. [vol. i. p. 649.] 

the world under the Old Testament; from Philo. 31 

with gentleness and persuasion, He communicates many BOOK i. 

even of His secrets, none of which is it lawful for the un- c jg p j 

initiated to hear; at times also He enquires of some, as He ~ 

did of Adam, saying, Where art thou ? . . . But when the Word 

has come into the assembly of His friends, He does not begin 

to speak, until He has called each of them, and addressed him 

by name, that with ears intent and with quietness and atten 

tion they may lay up His oracles in never-failing memory ; 

as in another place also it is written, < Be still, and listen. In 

this way Moses is called at the bush, For when the Lord/ 

he says, saw that he drew near to see, God called him out [35] 

of the bush, and said. Moses, Moses ; and he answered, What 

is it ? &c. So also Abraham/ &c. 

In the same book u also he was of opinion 1 , with the holy isensit. 
fathers of the Church, that the Lord who rained brimstone 
and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah was the Word ; for after 
quoting those words out of Genesis, " The sun was risen upon 
the earth when Lot entered into Zoar 2 , and the Lord rained 2 Segor. 
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone arid fire/ he 
immediately adds, "For when the Word of God visits our 
terrestrial system, He gives help and succour to such as are 
akin to virtue and incline to it, so as to afford to them a [35] 
refuge and complete security ; whilst upon His enemies He 
sends irremediable destruction and ruin." 

17. This testimony is not weakened by the observation, 
which Grotius has made, that the created angels themselves 
are called by Philo throughout, the Words, rovs \6yovs; 
doubtless because they also are, according to their measure, 
the messengers and interpreters of God s will to men. For 
although this is most true, still it is evident that Philo, 
in the passages quoted, (to which it would be easy to add 
many others,) designates as the Word, one certain individual 
being 3 , so called by way of pre-eminence, who is the first-be- 3 singula- 
gotten Son of God, superior to all the angels, and even to quen ~ 
the whole universe. And if this same Philo has, in some 
instances, used expressions concerning the Word and first- 
begotten Son of God, which are not worthy of His majesty, 

^ 6 yap TOV eou \6yos, 6ra.v eVl rd rafyvyfy Kal awTf\p(o.v avroTs 

7e<8es ripwv avar^^a. d^i/cTjTCU, TO?S Traj/reATj rots 8e avrnraXois oXtQpo 

avyyevea-i Kal -rrpbs dpery/i/ tyBopav a.via.rov 4iwrt}j.irfi. Pag. 578. 

ft /ecu /Jorjflei, us a- [p. 633.] 

32 Philo s statements confirmed by the Book of Wisdom. 


TO V. 


ON THE this is easily to be excused in an age in which the mystery 
fsT B E~NCB of the most Hol y Trinity had not, as yet, been fully revealed 
OF THE t the Jews. Nay, it is rather to be wondered at that a man 

- should have seen so clearly in so great a darkness. For in 
Book ii. Of the Allegories of the Law x , he says, that this Word 
of God is " above the whole world, the oldest and most uni- 

- versal l of all things which have been made." And in his work 
Of the Creation of the World*, he calls the same being "the 
Word of God that created the world." And, afterwards 2 , he 
speaks of " the divine Word, and the Word of God, invisible 
and perceived by the mind, a supercelestial star, the fountain 
of the stars which are perceived by sense." Also in his book 
On the Confusion of Tongues a , he calls Him not only "the 
most ancient and the most sacred Word of God," but like 
wise " His eternal image." 

18. Lest, however, any one should suspect that Philo 

- Platonizes 2 in these expressions, (an opinion which many have 
entertained who are not acquainted with Jewish literature, 
whereas it should rather be thought that Plato Philonizes 3 , 
that is, that he derived his notions concerning the Logos 
from the doctrines of the Jews, which were, I may say, the 
mother tongue of Philo,) the Jewish author of the book in- 
titled " the Wisdom of Solomon," (who it is certain from 
most evident proofs, was much more ancient than Philo, and 
not, as some have imagined, Philo himself,) propounds the 
same doctrines concerning the Word. For in xviii. 15, speak 
ing of the Angel who smote the first-born of the Egyptians, 
he says, " Thine almighty Word leaped down out of heaven 
from off Thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the 



* uTrepdVco iravrls rov K6ff/j.ov, Kal 
irptafrvrarov /cat yeviKcbrarov ru>v oVa 
76701/6. Leg. Allegor. p. 93. [lib. iii. 
vol. i. p. 121.] 

y QeoD \6yov KofffioTroiovvra. De 
Opif. Mundi, p. 5. [vol. i. p. 5. So 
quoted by Bp. Bull ; Dr. Burton says ; 
lf In citing these words this great man 
has made a slight mistake. Philo s 
words are: ei Se TIS e 0eA7j<reie yvpvo- 
repots -xp-fio-aa-Qai rots bv6f*.affiv, ouSei/ 
Uv erepov eliroi rbv voyrbv eli/at K6tT/j.ov 
3) eoi; \6yov ^8yj KO(r/j.oTroiovvTOS."~] 

* rov a.6parov Kal vot]rbv 6e?ov \6yov, 
Kal &eov Xoyov, vtrepovpavioi aarripa, 
mrjyrjv ru>v aiffQifr&v affTeptav, Ibid., p. 

6. [So quoted by Bp. Bull ; Dr. Burton 
says; " He here also cites Philo s words 
inaccurately: rbv Se a6parov Kal vorirov 
6e?ov \6yov Kal eou \6yov ti^ra \4yci 
eou, Kal ravr^s etfcoVa TO vof]rov (pus 
e/ce7Vo, 6 Bclov \6yov yeyovev eiic&v rov 
ifpp.-r}vtvffavros T^V ycvefftv avrov" Kal 
%<mv virepovpdvios affr^p, irt]y^ TWV 
al(r6rjTu>v a<rre pa>i/."] 

a [The whole passage is, Kal yap et 
fj^irw Ittavol 6fov -TratSes voplCfffOtu ye- 
y6va(j.V, a\\d TOI TOV di Stou fiKOVOS av- 
rov, \6yov rov lepurdroV 0eo9 7ap et- 
K&V, \6yos 6 Trpeafivraros. ] De Conf. 
Ling., p. 341. [vol. i. p. 427. J 

And by the use of" The Word" in the Jewish Paraphrases. 33 

midst of a land of destruction ;" where it is clear that the BOOK i. 
author is speaking of a personally-subsisting Word 1 . And it 17*19] 

is no less evident that it is not some ministering angel, as l 
Grotius would have it, but a Divine Person, that is designated 
in this place; for the author calls this Word 2 "Almighty," 2 Sermo _ 
and also assigns to Him " a royal throne in heaven." We nem - 
may further add what he afterwards says of the same Being 
in the 16th verse ; " And standing up, He filled all things with 14 
death ; and He touched the heaven, but He walked upon [38] 
the earth;" in these words are signified the greatness and 
power of Him who filleth all things, and displays His power 
in heaven and on earth. The author possibly erred in this 
point, (I say, possibly, for I will not venture to assert cer 
tainly that he has erred,) in expounding the destroying angel 
of the Word, inasmuch as learned commentators in general 
have thought that he was a mere angel. However, it is 
clear from this passage that this ancient and venerable 
writer believed that the Word Himself, being sent by God 
the Father, sometimes came down from His royal throne in 
heaven unto men in the form of an angel, and that on this 
account He is in Scripture called by the name of an Angel. 
For the same view Masius quotes, out of the Jewish Rabbis, 
the very ancient book Tanchumah, and the Rabbi Gerun- 
densis; whose words he cites at some length in his com 
mentary on Joshua v. 13, 14. 

19. It is, however, to be especially observed here, (as has 
been long ago remarked by learned men,) that almost always 
in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, when God is men 
tioned as speaking to us, assisting us, or in short holding any 
sort of intercourse with us, the Chaldee Paraphrases render 
the name of God by joiD B or "i^, Verbum, the Word ; no 
doubt signifying hereby, that in such passages it is the Son 
of God who is spoken of, who is called the Word, and whose 
peculiar office it is to hold converse with us. Thus in 
Gen. iii. 8, instead of " They heard the voice of the Lord 
God," the Targum of Onkelos, and the Targum ascribed to 
Jonathan, have, " They heard the voice of the Word of the 
Lord God." In the same chapter, verse 9, instead of, " And 
God called unto Adam," the Jerusalem Targum has, " And 
the Word of the Lord called unto Adam ;" just as we have 

34 Attempt to explain this usage otherwise ; fruitless. 

before seen that Philo understood the passage. In Gen. 
xxi. 20, instead of, " And God was with him," Onkelos has, 
THK SON - And the Word of the Lord was with him, to help him ;" 
[39] and in the 22nd verse, instead of " God is with thee," Onkelos 
has, " The Word of the Lord is with thee for a help." So in 
Hosea i. 7, instead of, " And I will save them by Jehovah 
their God," the Targum of Jonathan has, " I will save them 
Dei Do- by the Word of the Lord their God 1 ." This passage the ancient 
ini sui. Christian writers also agreed in explaining of the salvation of 
God s people to be obtained through Christ. To elude the 
force of these places, (similar ones to which are contained in 
the Targums throughout 1 ^) some writers remark, that &nVD 
or t^D is occasionally used for auro?, "himself ." But this 
is to no purpose, for though we should allow the fact, we yet 
on good grounds deny that that mode of expression applies 
to the passages before us. For, besides that it is plain from 
the evidence alleged above out of Philo and the book of Wis 
dom, that the ancient Hebrews recognised a certain Word of 
God the Father, [as] a Person really distinct from God the 
Father Himself, who used to come down [from heaven] to 
loqui. men and converse 2 with them ; there are also in the Chaldee 
Paraphrases some passages which altogether refuse to admit 
the interpretation in question. In Gen. xx. 3, where the 
Hebrew text has, " And God came to Abimelech," the Tar- 
gum of Onkelos (with which the Targum of Jonathan agrees) 
translates it, " And DIP p "1D"D the Word from the face of 
God came to Abimelech ;" which cannot, certainly, be under 
stood to mean, "And God Himself came from the face of 
God/ &c. So, according to the testimony of Petrus Gala- 
tinus, iii. 28, and that writer of very great learning and inte 
grity, Paulus Fagius, on Deut. v., the Targum of Jonathan, 
on Ps. ex. 1, (for the part of that Targum which is on the 
Psalms has now either altogether perished, or at all events is 
[40] not extant in print,) paraphrases the words thus, " The Lord 
said mo bS unto His Word, Sit Thou on My right hand ;" 
which cannot possibly be understood to mean, the Lord 
said unto Himself, &c. But enough on this point. 

b On this see more in Poole s Synop- see Jacob. Capellus in his Annotations 
sis on Job. i. 1. BOWYER. on John i. 1. 

e For the reason of this expression 

These considerations also establish His Consubstantiality. 35 

20. From all that has been said, it is now manifest on BOOKI. 
how great authority the ancient doctors of the Church l^f^o. 
affirmed that it was the Son of God who in former times, 
under the Old Testament, appeared to holy men, distin 
guished by the Name of Jehovah, and honoured by them 
with divine worship. But the attentive reader will observe, 
that here, whilst I have aimed at proving by the testimo 
nies adduced the pre-existence of the Son before [His birth 
of] the Virgin Mary, I have at the same time furnished no 
inconsiderable confirmation, also, of His Consubstantiality. 
Inasmuch as from what we have thus far said, it is most 
evident, that the ante-Nicene fathers, with one consent, 
taught, (in accordance with the Holy Scripture of the 
Old Testament, and the teachers of the ancient Jews,) that 
He who appeared and spoke to Moses, in the burning bush 
and on Mount Sinai, who manifested Himself to Abraham, 
&c., was the Word, or Son, of God. It is, however, certain, 
that He who appeared is called Jehovah, I am l , the God of 1 Eum qui 
Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, &c., titles which clearly est 
are not applicable to any created being, but are peculiar to 
the true God. And this is the very reasoning which the fathers 
all employ to prove, that in such manifestations it was not 
a mere created angel, but the Son of God, who was present ; 
that the Name of Jehovah, namely, and divine worship are 
given to Him who appeared; but that these are not com 
municable to any creature, and belong to the true God 
alone; whence it follows that they all believed that the Son 
was very God. This, however, I must simply pass over, until 
I come to the proof of the second proposition. Meanwhile 
let us proceed to what remains bearing on the division 
already before us. 





1. I PASS to the second portion of our Proposition, that 

E is > to shew that the Doctors of tne first a S es of the Churcl1 

THE SON, believed that the Son was begotten of God the Father be 
fore the foundations of the world were laid, and that this 
universe was created through Him. It will not be neces 
sary to spend much time on this ; since in the following 
books we shall adduce many passages out of these writers, 
which declare far more excellent things of the Son of God. 
At present, therefore, I shall be content with a few testi 
monies from such writers as nourished either in the very age 
in prima o f the Apostles, or in that of their first successors 1 ; during 
nSo- which times especially, our modern Photinians impudently 
- aver, that their tenets obtained in the Church of Christ. 

2 d . An Epistle is extant, which was printed 6 for the first 

time in our own days, bearing the name of St. Barnabas. 

That the Apostle Barnabas was the author of it, was the 

opinion of our own very learned Hammond, the illustrious 

Isaac Vossius, and others f ; and chiefly on the ground that 

Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other ancient writers, 

frequently quote it under his name. Nor have the patrons of 

the opposite opinion^ any thing else to advance against them, 

except that the author of the Epistle appears to have inter 

preted some passages of the Old Testament too mystically. 

A probable reason for this, however, is given by Hammond 

in his first Dissertation against Blondel h ; where, after having, 

in the preceding chapters, drawn the character of the Gnos- 

[42] tics, he says, "The Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas, which was 

published not long ago, will admit of easy explanation from 

d [Grate s annotations on this sec- f [Pearson, Cave, Du Pin, Wake. 

tion will be found in an Appendix at B.] 

the end of the work.] g [Basnage, Jones (on the Canon ot 

o [Paris. 1645, cum notis Menardi the N. T. q. v.) B.] 

et Dacherii.-B.] h Chap. 7. 4, 5, pp. 22, 23. 

The Epistle of St. Barnabas ; testimonies from it. 37 

this one characteristic of the Gnostics : whereas otherwise (as a BOOK i. 
complicated and lengthy riddle) it will most certainly create 1,2. 

a difficulty to its readers. Those disciples of Simon (Magus) BARNABAS. 
arrogating to themselves knowledge (<yv&cru>), that is, the 
power of interpreting Holy Scripture mystically, were in the 
habit of accommodating many mysteries of the Old Testa 
ment to their own impure uses. Hence Barnabas, almost 
throughout the whole of this Epistle of his, opposes to the 
doctrines of the Gnostics very many passages, also mystically 
and cabalistically interpreted." And in the following chap 
ters he shews how well the whole Epistle serves to refute the 
wild notions 1 of the Gnostics. Be that however as it may, i deliriis. 
at any rate he is proved to have been an author of the very 
earliest antiquity, by the testimonies of the ancients cited 
above, by his use of expressions which are peculiar to the apo 
stolic age, by the simplicity of his style, and lastly, by the 
heresies which he opposes, and which are such only as sprung 
up 2 in the time of the Apostles themselves. Now this author, 2 pullula- 
not far from the beginning of the Epistle, according to the runtt 
old Latin translation, (for the Greek original in that part is 
lost,) thus speaks of our Saviour, chap. 5 1 ; "And for this 
end the Lord endured 3 to suffer for the salvation of our souls, 3 sustinuit. 
though He is the Lord of all the earth, to whom He said on 
the day" (perhaps we should read "to whom God said") 
[Deus for die] " before the creation of the world, Let us 
make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. " 
And a little afterwards he calls the sun the handy-work* of 4 opus 
the Son of God. It is a remarkable passage in the same 
chapter, which runs thus k ; " He at that time manifested 
Himself to be the Son of God ; for if He had not come in 
the flesh, how could men have been saved by looking on 
Him ? For in looking on the sun, which will one day cease 
to be, and which is His handy-work, they cannot endure to 
fix their eyes full upon its rays." Lastly, in chap. 12 he [43] 

i Et ad hoc Dominus sustinuit pati k T^TC e0az/epco<rej/ eavrbv vibv eov 

pro anima nostra, cum sit orbis terra- flvac el yap /mrj 1i\Qev ev aapKl, TTUS b.v 

rum Dominus, cui dixit die (forte le- eVwfluuei/ foBptairoi jSAeWres avr6v ; 

gendum, Deus) ante constitutionem 6n rov /ueAAoi/ra ^ flvai ri\iov, cpyov 

sseculi, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem xeipajj/ avrov virdpxoi Ta, fiXeirovrss OVK 

et similitudinem nostrum. Pag. 217, Ivxvovffiv els a.Kr iva^ avrov avr 

218. ed. Voss. ad calcem Ignat. Lond. u.ri(rai. Pag. 218, 219. fp. 16.1 
1680. [p. 60.] 



38 The Shepherd of Hermas ; its antiquity and authority ; 

ON THE speaks thus of our Saviour 1 ; " Herein also you have the 
"CE X OF T " glory of Jesus, because by Him and for Him are all things." 
THE SOK - 3. Hermas, or the author of the book entitled the Shep 
herd, most expressly delivers the same doctrine concerning 
our Lord. If you enquire about the antiquity of this au 
thor, hear the opinion of Grotius m ; "Hermas," he says, 
" whatever his authority may be, is certainly of the highest 
antiquity, as is evident from Irenseus and Clement, who 
quote his words." Indeed it is clear that this author was 
contemporary with Clement of Rome n ; for in his second 
Vision , towards the end, the old woman thus addresses him ; 
"You shall then write two books, and send one to Clement, 
and the other to Grapta ; and Clement will send it to the 
foreign cities, for it is permitted him," &c. But as to 
the credit and authority which are due to this author, 
BlondelP, indeed, as if stung with madness, raves against 
16 him and his writings in a strange way, calling them "the 
dreams of an insane prophet," and the author himself " an 
impure dogmatist, the fountain-head of the Novatians and of 
the Pelagians, and the sink of Montanist superstitions." If 
you ask what made him so angry, I imagine that it will 
be found that the man was vexed, (though he avow it 
[44] not,) because in more than one place the Shepherd q has ex 
pressly acknowledged that the order of bishops is above [that 
of] presbyters, contrary to what Blondel wished. The primi 
tive Church, however, thought very differently of both, and 
in comparison of her judgment, we justly consider the criti 
cism of Blondel, notwithstanding his very great learning, as 
of little weight, or rather of none. By Irenseus r the tract 
called the Shepherd, is quoted as Scripture; "Well, then," he 

1 evets al eV TOUT$> r-f)v oav TOV Apol., pp. 16, 17. 

1770-00, Sri lv avr<S vdvra xai ew abrdv. 1 See Hermas, Vis. iii. et Simil. ix. 

P. 238. [p. 40.] [i- e - lib - i- Vis - "* 5 - P- 80 - et llbl m - 

m Ann ot. ad Marc. ii. 8. Sim. ix. 15. p. 119.] 

n Dodwell conceives that Clement r Bene ergo, inquit, pronuntiavit 
occupied the see of Rome from the Scriptura: Primo omnium crede, quo- 
year 64, or 65, to the year 81. The niam unus est Deus, qui omnia con- 
bishop of Chester [Pearson] from the stituit et consummavit, et fecit ex eo 
year 69 to 82. Cave, Hist. Lit. in quod non erat; &c. [c. 20. p. 253. 
Herm. BOWYER. The Greek is given by Eusebius, v. 8, 

Scribes ergo duos libellos ; et mit- and others : KaAws ovv tltrev ij ypaQlt 

tes unum dementi, et unum Graptre. f) Xeyovtra, irpurov -navruv *i(TTev(rov, 

Mittet autem Clemens in exteras civi- 6rl els forlv 6 ebs, 6 ra -rrdvTa KTiaas 

tates ; illi enim permissum est, 8iC. ral /coraprio-as, /cot irotTja-as e /c rov /X,T> 

[Lib. i. p. 78.] ovros ets rb eZj/ai TO. iravTa. B.] 

referred to by Irenaus, Clement. Alex., and Tertullian. 39 

says, "has the Scripture spoken, which says, Before all BOOKI. 
things believe that God is one, who created and perfected all 2, 3. * 
things, and made them out of that which did not exist/" &c. HERMAS- 
Where by Scripture Eusebius (E. H. v. 8) observes, that 
the treatise called the Shepherd is meant : and the pas 
sage quoted by Irenseus is" found, word for word, in the 
writings of Hermas, which are now extant, (Book ii. Mand. 1 ;) 
and on this Bellarmine appositely remarks, that " Irenseus 
would not have given the title of Scripture simply 1 to the ! absolute, 
book of an author of his own age, who had neither been an 
Apostle, nor a hearer of the Apostles 8 ." Hermas is also 
quoted frequently by Clement of Alexandria, who also in 
express terms acknowledged "the power, which spoke by 
revelation to Hermas, as speaking divinely." (Strom, i. near 
the end 1 .) Tertullian, whilst yet a Catholic, in the twelfth 
chapter of his treatise On Prayer, [p. 134,] replies to certain 
men who alleged the writings of Hermas in favour of a cus 
tom of which he himself disapproved, in such a way as by no 
means to reject the authority of the writing 2 , but to endeavour 2 scripturae. 
to evade the force of his words by a suitable explanation of 
them, as is usually done in weighing the sense of other Holy 
Scriptures. Nay more, in his treatise On Chastity, c. 20, 
[p. 572,] after he had fallen into the heresy of Montanus, 
although he is somewhat bitter against the Shepherd, and, 
therefore, with want of modesty enough calls him " an 
apocryphal shepherd of adulterers," (because in accordance 
with the whole of Scripture he allowed a second repentance 
to the adulterer and fornicator,) and consequently denies his 
canonical authority, he yet does it in such a way that all per 
sons of sound judgment must think that he bestows on it no 
despicable character. He says u ; " The Epistle of Barnabas" 
(meaning the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he attributed 
to Barnabas) " is a more received book in the Churches 
than that apocryphal Shepherd of adulterers." Well, indeed, 
will it be for the Shepherd, if the second place after the 

s Bellarm. de Script. Eccles., con- K.T.A. [P. 426.] 

cerning the author of the book called u [Et utique receptior apud Ecclesias 

the Shepherd, [vol. vii. p. 25. Op., ed. Epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pas- 

1601 1617.] tore moechorum. Tert. de Pudicitia, 

t deicas TO LVVV f) vva/ ^ T<p Ep/uiS, c. 10. p. 572.] 
/car aTTO/caAt il/ti AaAoDcra . . 

40 Origen, Athanasius, Ruffinus and Jerome, on Hermas. 


2 instru- 

ON THE Epistle to the Hebrews be given it ! When, therefore, Ter- 
KNofoF 1 " tullian (in the tenth chapter of the same book x ) calls the writ- 
SON. i n g of the Shepherd "false and spurious 1 ," he must certainly 
be so understood as to be thought only to deny that that 
treatise " was worthy to be inserted in the divine Canon 2 ;" as 
indeed he explains himself in so many words in that very 
passage. The Shepherd is also very frequently quoted by 
Origen, who (on Rom. xvi. y ) even pronounced it to be not 
3 scriptu- only a "very useful writing 3 ," but also "divinely inspired." It 
is also quoted by Eusebius, out of Irenaeus, Eccl. Hist. v. 8 Z ; 
also by Athanasius a , On the Incarnation of the Word, who 
likewise calls it a " most useful" treatise; and this judgment 
of the great doctor will be readily assented to by any one who 
peruses the work attentively and without prejudice. Rufinus 
(On the Creed, c. 38 b ) allows to the Shepherd the same place 
in the New Testament which the books of Tobit, Judith, and 
the Maccabees, had in the Old. Lastly, Jerome in his Pro- 
logus Galeatus [to the book of Kings ] reckons the treatise, 
called the Shepherd, among the ecclesiastical books, with the 
book of Judith and Tobit: and in his treatise On the Ecclesias 
tical Writers d , he says, " The Shepherd is at this time publicly 
read in some of the churches of Greece ; it is a really profitable 
book ; and many of the ancient writers have employed testi 
monies out of it." Whoever would know more concerning 
the antiquity and authority of this book, may consult the 
Vindication of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, by the very learned 
J. Pearson, the present most worthy bishop of Chester 6 . 

4. As however I think it of no small moment, that the 
authority and estimation with which this apostolic writer 
was regarded in the ancient Church should be maintained, 
I have deemed it fit, in passing, briefly to weigh the princi- 


* [Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura 
Pastoris, . . . divino instruments me- 
ruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio 
Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter 
apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, adul- 
tera et ipsa, &c. c. 10. p. 563.] 

y [Puto tamen quod Hermas iste sit 
scriptor libelli illius qui Pastor appel- 
latur, quse Scriptura valde mihi utilis 
videtur, et ut puto divinitus inspirata. 
Vol. iv. p. 683.] 

z [See p. 38. note r.] 

[^ 8e svQtos 8(5acrKaAta, xal f) ^uera 

XpHTrbv iricms . . . <p-r}(rl Sta Mwcrecos. . . 
Sta 8e TTJS w<eA.^uu>TaT7js /8i/3Aou TOU 


Incarnatione Verbi, 3. vol. i. p. 49.] 

" [Opusc., p. 189.] 

c [Vol. ix. p. 454.] 

d Pastor, inquit, apud quasdam Grse- 
ciae ecclesias jam publice legitur: re- 
vera utilis liber, multique de eo scrip- 
torum veterum usurpavere testimonia. 
[c. 10. vol. ii. p. 833.] 

e Pearson, Vindic., part i. [c. 4.] 
p. 39, &c. 

Objections against Hermas ; 1. as teaching Purgatory. 41 




pal reasons which have influenced certain modern theolo 
gians, especially amongst the reformed, to cast him out en 
tirely from the catalogue of approved doctors of the Church, 
and to drive far off from the fold of the Church that very excel 
lent Shepherd, as if he were a wolf and an enemy to the flock 
of Christ. They allege as objections against him sundry 
doctrines, little befitting one who was a disciple of the Apo 
stles. What then are these doctrines ? First, says Scultetus, 
who is followed by Rivetus, " Purgatory is brought forward 
by a certain old woman in the third Vision." But (let me 
say it, with all deference to men so great) they are very 
much mistaken. Let the words of the passage be produced. 
Hermas is enquiring, whether the grace of repentance and 
a place within the tower can be again accorded to such as in 
the vision had been cast forth out of the tower into the fire ? 
The aged woman replies f , "They have [the grace of] repent 
ance, but they cannot meet in this tower 1 ; but they shall 
be put into another place, much lower, and this after they 
have been tormented, and have fulfilled the days of their 
sins. And for this cause shall they be transferred, because 
they have known the Word of righteousness. And then it 
shall befall them to be transferred from their punish 
ments, if the evil deeds which they have done shall arise 
up in their hearts; but if they do not arise in their hearts, 
they shall not be saved, by reason of the hardness of their 
heart." Precisely akin to this is a passages at the end of 
the sixth Similitude, [lib. iii.] ; " For the passionate man, 
gratifying his habitual feelings, receives therein his pleasure ; 
the adulterer also, and the drunkard, and the slanderer, and 
the liar, and the covetous man, and the fraudulent, and 
whosoever commits any thing like unto these, yielding to 
his disease 2 , derives pleasure from what he does 3 . All these 2 morbo. 
delights and pleasures 4 are hurtful to the servants of God ; 

1 convenire 
in hac 



ex ea re. 

f Habent poenitentiam ; sed in hac 
turre non possunt convenire. Alio au- 
tem loco ponentur multo inferiore, et 
hoc, cum cruciati fuerint et impleve- 
rint dies peccatorum suorum. Et prop- 
ter hoc transferentur, quoniam perce- 
perunt Verbum justum. Et tune illis 
continget transferri de pcenis, si ascen- 
derint in corda ipsorum opera, qtiae 
operati sunt scelesta. Quod si non as- 

cenderint in corda ipsorum, non erunt 
salvi propter duritiam cordis sui. FS 7 
p. 80.] 

s Etenim iracundus satisfaciens mo- 
ribus suis percipit voluptatem suam 
(rpvQa) ; et adulter, et ebriosus, et 
detractor, et mendax, et cupidus, et 
fraudator, et quicunque iis simile ali- 
quid admittit, morbo suo parens, per 
cipit ex ea re voluptatem (rpvtpuffi eV 

ac volup- 


1 verberi- 
bus, Sepd 

42 The words of Hermas alleged as implying Purgatory, 

on account of them therefore they are tormented and endure 
punishments. There are, moreover, pleasures which bring 
salvation unto men. For many in performing good works 
find pleasure in them, being drawn on by the sweetness 
thereof. Such pleasure, then, as this, is profitable to the ser 
vants of God, and procures for such persons life ; but those 
hurtful pleasures, which were before mentioned, produce 
torments and punishments. And, whosoever shall continue 
in them, and not repent of what they have done, shall bring 
death upon themselves." I regard it as certain that, in 
these passages, the thing spoken of is not the popish pur 
gatory, (that is a mere figment of the monks, which none of 
the ancients who flourished in the three first centuries even 
dreamed of h ,) but only to those cleansing punishments, or 
afflictions, which God, in His mercy, is wont to send upon 
sinners, for their amendment, in this present life. For so 
the Shepherd most clearly explains himself in the same sixth 
Similitude 1 , in a passage before that just cited. Hermas there 
relates, that he saw some sheep, which a certain shepherd 
" was driving into a place full of precipices, and thorns, and 
briars, so that they could not extricate themselves from the 
briars and thorns ; but they fed there, entangled, as they 
were, in the briars and thorns, and were grievously tortured 
with his lashes 1 ; for he continued to drive them about, and 
allowed them neither space nor time to rest." Hermas then 

h [Dr. Burton here refers to his note 
on Bp. Bull s first Sermon, (Works, 
vol. i. p. 33,) which is as follows; 
"For the opinion of the ante-Nicene 
fathers on this passage, (i. e. 1 Pet. iii. 19, 
20,) see Hermas, iii. sim. 9. e. 16; 
Ireneeus, iv. 27 ; Clem. Alex. Strom, 
iii. 4. p. 526, vi. 6 ; Excerpta. Theod. 
ad fin. Clem. Alex., p. 973; Tertull. 
de Anima, c. 7. 55 ; Origen, c. Cels. ii. 
43 ; In Exod., 6 ; In Keg. Horn. ii. 
vol. ii. p. 497 ; in Psalm., p. 553 ; Hip- 
pol. de Antichristo, 26, 45."] 

1 Visa sibi pecora, quae pastor qui- 
dam compellebat in praecipitem locum 
quendam ac spinosum, tribulisque con- 
sertum, usque adeo ut de spinis et tri- 
bulis se non possent explicare ; sed im- 
plicita ibi pascebantur spinis ettribulis, 
et graves cruciatus experiebantur ex 
verbis (s. verberibus) ejus (Sepo^eva vrr* 
avrov} : agebat enim ea, et nee consis- 
tendi eis locum ante (s. aut.) tempus 

Trj 7rpaet avTwv). Hae omnes dulce- 
dines ac voluptates noxise sunt servis 
Dei : propter has itaque cruciantur et 
patiuntur poenas. Sunt etiam volup 
tates, salutem hominibus afferentes. 
Multi enim opera bonitatis facientes 
percipiunt voluptatem, dulcedine sua 
tracti. Hsec ergo voluptas utilis est 
servis Dei, et vitam parat hujusmodi 
hominibus. Illae vero noxiae, quae su 
pra dictae sunt, tormenta et poenas pa- 
riunt. Quicunque vero permanserint 
in illis, nee admissorum suornm ege- 
rint pcenitentiam, mortem sibi acqui- 
rent. [ 5. p. 1 10. The text of the old 
Latin version is given, being that which 
Bull used. Of some portions only has 
the original Greek been recovered, and 
that since he wrote : it has been used 
in this translation to determine the 
sense of the Latin, and in one instance 
to correct it. The variations do not 
affect any doctrinal point.] 

shewn to refer to chastisements inflicted in this life. 43 

goes on to say; "When, therefore, I saw that they were BOOKI. 
thus lashed, and suffering such misery, I was grieved for 

them, because they were greatly tormented, and no rest was HERMAS. 
given them, and I said to the Shepherd 1 that was with me, x rfayye- 
Who, Sir, is this shepherd that is so unmerciful and cruel, * v P aston - 
and is not at all moved by compassion towards these sheep ? 
He answered, This shepherd is indeed the angel of vengeance, 
and he is one of the righteous angels, but is appointed over the 
punishment [of sinners]. To him, accordingly, are handed 
over those who have strayed from God, and served the de 
sires and pleasures of the present world. For this cause 
doth he punish them, as they have each deserved, with 
varied and cruel punishments. Sir, was my reply, I would 
fain know of what sort are these various punishments ? Hear 
then, said he ; these are the various penalties and torments 
which men suffer daily IN THEIR LIFETIME 2 . For some suffer 2 invitasua 
losses, others poverty, and others divers sicknesses. Some 
of them suffer from unsettledness 3 , others suffer injuries at 
the hands of unworthy men, and many other trials and O . 
inconveniences. . . . When, therefore, they shall have en 
dured every vexation and discomfort, then they are deli 
vered over to me for good instruction, and are strength 
ened in .the faith of the Lord, and serve Him the rest 
of the days of their life with a pure mind. And when 
they have begun to repent for their sins, then their deeds 

permittebat (/cat d\ws aird.Trav<nv avrols homines quotidie IN VITA SUA pati- 

OVK 4SiSov, ou5 5 ivravTo.) Cumvideretn untur. Alii enim (^am/ecu eliriv jSctcra- 

ergo sic ea flagellari, et miscrias expe- voi,fTravyapa.Tro(TTW(Tirov&eov,vo/ji.i^oi/- 

riri, dolebam pro eis, quia valde crucia- res eV ai/a-rravcrei eJvai Kal irXovrcp] de- 

bantur, nee ulla requies eis dabatur. Di- trimen ta patiuntur ; alii inopiam alii di- 

co ad Pastorem ilium, qui erat meeum versasaegrimonias(do-0ei/eicus). Quidam 

(T<payye\yT< juer t(j.ov AaAotWi). Quis inconstantiam (aKaratrraffiais), alii in- 

est, Domine, hie pastor tarn implaca- jurias ab indignis patientes, multaque 

bilis, et tarn amarus, qui nullo modo alia exercitia et incommoda . . . Cum 

miseratione movetur adversus hsec pe- igitur perpessi fuerint omnem vexatio- 

cora? Hie, inquit, Pastor pro justis nem etomneincommodum, tunctradun- 

quidem nuntius est, (ovr6s eariv 6 &y- tur mihiadbonam admonitionem, et fir- 

7eAos rrjs Tipupias fK 8e TWJ/ a.yyt\vv mantur in fide Domini, et per reliquos 

SiKaicav eVrl,) sed prrepositus poenae. dies vitae serviunt Domino mente pura 

Huic ergo traduntur qui a Deo aber- (/cal \oiirov o.lnwvTan^v Kvpiov Kal OVK 

raverunt, et servierunt desideriis ac ave^ovrat ras \oiirds f)/j.epds avrwi/ eVt- 

voluptatibus saeculi hujus. Punit ergo (TTpei|/ai/Tes Sov\evaai ry 0e< eV KaQapa 

eos, sicut meruit unusquisque eorum, /capSia). Et cum cosperint delictorum 

snevis variisque poenis. Vellem, in- agere poenitentiam, tune ascendunt in 

quam, nosse, Domine, varias has poe- prtecordia eorum opera sua, in quibus 

nas, cujusmodi sunt. Audi, inquit ; va- se nequiter exercuerunt (TOTC (rwiaxri, 

riaeposnaeatquetormentahsecsunt, quae 6-ri Sid TO. epya avrwv ra ir6vripa OVK 

44 Statements opposed to Purgatory. Obj. 2. taught Free-will. 

ON THE in which they have wickedly exercised themselves, rise up 
P KF T " in their hearts; they then give honour to God, confessing 
m* SON - that He is a just judge, and that they have deservedly 
[49] suffered all according to their doings. And for the time to 
come they serve God with a pure mind, and have success in 
all they undertake, obtaining of the Lord whatsoever they 
ask. And then they give thanks to the Lord, that they have 
been handed over unto me ; and do not henceforward suffer 
any thing of cruelty," &c. &c. Now what can be clearer 
than this explanation ? Nay, you may read statements in 
our Hernias which utterly overthrow the popish purgatory. 
For he writes thus in his third Vision k ; " They, therefore, 
who have yet to repent, if they shall have repented, will be 
strong in the faith ; that is, provided they shall repent NOW, 
whilst the tower is in building. For if the building shall 
have been finished, from that time no one hath a place left 
wherein he may be put, but he will be a reprobate. That man 
alone will have this, who is ALREADY placed on the tower." 

Another objection of these same learned persons, that 
free-will is asserted by Hermas, is a frivolous one. For a 
free-will, acting with and under divine grace, which alone 
Barker. Hernias maintains, is equally 1 asserted both by Holy Scrip 
ture, and by all the Catholic doctors of the first ages. 

There is a graver charge which is made against him both by 
reformed and popish theologians, to the effect that he allows 
but one repentance to such as have lapsed into the more 
heinous sins, after receiving the grace of the Holy Ghost in 
baptism. But let us once more hear the very words of the 
Shepherd ; thus then does he write (in the second book, in 
the fourth Mandate, near the end 1 ;) " I tell thee, if any one, 

Et tune dant Deo hono- fide, si NUNC pcenitentiam egerint, dum 

rein, dicentes justum Judicem eum aedificatur turris. Nam si consummata 

esse,meritoque se omnia esse perpessos fuerit structura, jam quis non habet lo- 

secundum facta sua. In reliquum vero cum, ubi ponatur, sed erit reprobus. 

serviuntDeo mente pura, et successum Solummodo autem hoc habebit, qui 

habent in negotiis suis omnibus, acci- JAM ad turrim positus est. [ 5. p. 80.] 
pientes a Domino qusecunque poscunt. x Dico tibi, quod post vocationem 

Et tune gratias agunt Domino, quod illam magnam et sanctam siquis ten- 

sint mihi traditi, nee jam quidquam tatiis fuerit a Diabolo, et peccaverit, 

crudelitatis patiuntur, &c. [ 2. p. unam pcenitentiam habet. Si autem 

109. See the Greek in ed. Coteler. subinde peccet, et pcenitentiam agat, 

B.] non proderit homini talia agenti ; dif- 

k Q,ui ergo pcenitentiam acturi sunt, ficile enim vivit Deo." [ 3. p. 91.] 
si egerint pcenitentiam, fortes erunt in 

Obj, 3. allowed but one repentance ; Ms words explained. 45 

after that great and holy calling, shall have been tempted of BOOK i. 
the devil, and shall have committed sin, he hath one repent- cn 4 " 
ance. But if from time to time 1 he sin and repent, it shall HERMAS. 
not profit the man that doeth so ; for hardly will he live unto ! submde - 
God." The Shepherd seems to be speaking of such as, after 
receiving the grace of regeneration, having fallen away, and 
having been restored through repentance, again relapse, sub- 
inde, that is, often, into the same or similar grievous sins, [50] 
and, as often, repent. That this desultory repentance, so to 
call it, profits a man nothing, he does with good reason affirm. 
He does not, however, altogether despair of the salvation of 
such persons, he only declares that "it is difficult" for men 
of such a character, who thus, as it were, sin and repent by is 
turns, " to live unto God ;" and this is most true. So also in 
an earlier part of the same chapter 111 the Shepherd opposes 
to one repentance the " sinning often." For shewing how a 
husband ought to behave towards a wife, who has been put 
away because of adultery, and who repents of her sin, and 
seeks to be received back again by her husband, he says, " He 
ought to receive the offending woman who has repented, but 
not often ; because to the servants of God there is but one re 
pentance." But if you interpret submde by delude, [" from 
time to time" by "afterwards," see above,] and so understand 
the mind of the Shepherd as if he meant indeed to allow 
repentance to such as had only once lapsed, after they had 
received the grace of the Holy Ghost, but not to those who 
had fallen a second time, (i. e. into the more grievous sins,) 
then the Shepherd must be regarded as speaking of the pen 
ance to be performed before the Church, and of the absolu 
tion consequent upon it, which the severer discipline of that 
age in many places used to allow once only to such lapsed 
persons; although, at the same time, it did not entirely 
exclude such as had repeatedly lapsed, from the hope of ob 
taining remission with God. In this way Acesius in Socrates 
explains the opinion of the Novatians themselves concerning 
such as had once only after baptism fallen into sin which is 
unto death"; " How that it is not fit that they who, after bap- [51] 

m [ 1. pp. 88, 89.] Ka\ov<ni> at 0e?c ypou^al, rrjs 

n &s apa ov xp^ rovs /j.fra rb fiair- Koivoovias T&V de iow /j.v(rrrjpiu>v aiov- 
afiapriciv, V irpbs <r6ar a\\ eirl fjisravoiav p.ev avrovs 

46 Hermas testimony to the Pre- existence of the Son ; 

tism, have committed a sin which the Holy Scriptures call a 
^ ur sin unto death/ should be admitted to the participation of the 
TIIK SON - divine mysteries ; still they ought to be exhorted to repent 
ance, and to look for the hope of remission, not from the 
priests, but from God, who is able and has full power to 
forgive sins." Indeed, in whatever other way you interpret 
the passage of the Shepherd, this is certain, that the lapsed, 
of whom he is speaking, are not by him wholly shut out from 
the hope of living with God ; forasmuch as he only says, as 
I have remarked already, that " it is difficult for them to live 
unto God." On account of a similar passage, however, it was 
a long time before the Epistle to the Hebrews was received 
into the canon by the Church of Rome. See the learned 
annotations of Grotius on the fourth and following verses of 
the sixth chapter of that Epistle. I thought that I ought, 
by the way as it were, once for all, to say thus much in de 
fence of Hermas, whose authority we shall hereafter use in 
contending against the Arians. 

5. Let us now hear the very remarkable testimony of this 
venerable and apostolic writer respecting the pre-existence 
of the Son. In the ninth Similitude , then, he thus speaks 
concerning the Son of God; "The Son of God indeed is more 
ancient than any creature, so that He was present in counsel 
with His Father, in order to the creation of the world." 
This passage of Hermas is allowed by the author of the Ireni- 
cum Irenicorum, who agrees with me respecting the antiquity 
and authority of the writer. For the purpose, however, of de 
fending his own most absurd opinion, (by which he lays down 
that it was Justin who first introduced into the Christian 
Churches, out of the school of Plato, the doctrine of the pre- 
existence of the Son before the formation of the world, and of 
the creation of the world through Him,) he endeavours to elude 
[52] the testimony of Hermas in this manner; "It is altogether 
uncertain," he says?, "whether by the Son of God he means 
Christ, when, in the ninth Similitude, he says that the Son of 
God was more ancient than any creature." What ? Is it un- 

irporpcTrdV f\iri8a 8e TTJS a^eVccos ^ Filius quidem Dei omni creatura 

Trapa r&v /epeW, a\\a -rrapa rov 0eoC antiquior est, ita nt in consilio Patri 

e/c5eYeo-0ai TOV Swa^vov KCU ^ovaiav suo adt uerit ad condendam creaturam. 

ZXOVTOS ffvyxoP*" a/iaprVwo. So- [Lib. iii. 12. 1. Sim. ix. 12. p. 118.] 

crates, E. H. i. 10. * Iran. Irenic., p. 21. 

Objection ; that the Holy Spirit is referred to ; answered. 47 

certain ? Is it altogether uncertain ? Then, say I, sceptics are BOOK i 
the wisest of men, and there is nothing certain in human ^ 
affairs! "Nay," says this anonymous author, "the Holy Spirit HERMAS. 
is called by Hermas the Son of God, both in the fifth Simili 
tude, and in other places." Here, however, the heretic is 
wholly mistaken, and but too manifestly displays, as is his 
wont, his ignorance of " primitive antiquity, and of the faith 
of the early Christians," which, nevertheless, he boasts ^ of 
" having set before men s eyes, more clearly than it ever was 
before." Hermas nowhere calls the Holy Spirit, the third 
Person of the Godhead, the Son of God. The words of his 
in the fifth Similitude 1 , to which the anonymous author re 
fers, are as follows ; " The Son of God is the Holy Spirit 3 ." 
Where, it is true, the Son of God is called the Holy Spirit; 
but the Holy Spirit, if you understand the third Person of 
the Godhead, is not called by the title of the Son of God, 
which will be easily seen by one who examines the passage. 
The truth is, the whole discourse of Hermas in that place 
relates to the Son of God, who for our salvation became a 
servant, and assumed a body, in which He 1 conversed as a quod. 
servant. You will, however, ask on what principle Christ, 
the Son of God, is by Hermas called the Holy Spirit ? I 
answer, in respect of His divine nature 2 , or Godhead; inas- 
much as He, being Himself a most Holy Spirit, hath His 
being from God the Father, who is a most Holy Spirit. 
In which sense the designation of Holy Spirit may be ap 
plied to each Person of the most Holy Trinity. The appel 
lation of Holy Spirit is given, indeed, peculiarly to the [53] 
third Person of the Godhead, not in regard of nature 3 , 3 <t>foeu 
(for in this respect both the Father* is a Holy Spirit and 
the Son also,) but by reason of that ineffable spiration 4 , 4 spiratio 
whereby He u proceeds from the Father, through the Son. 
The ancient ecclesiastical writers, however, did not always so 

P> 13 - consult the passage __ B.] 

5 P 1 7 - * r * ar Iffov 


r - o 

L Hermas words are, Films autem % r rov *ve6(uero$ Kalrjrov ayiov K \rj- 
bptrttus Sane t us est. Servus vero life <m Trapes ypcutfs tyap^Tai. Gre- 

. Traps ypcus apTai. re- 

Fthus Dei. Whoever reads the entire gor. Nyssen. Orat. i. contr. Eunom. p. 

similitude, will perceive that "the 57. ed. Paris. 1615. [Orat. ii. vol. ii. 

Bon and "the Servant" are two per- p. 485.] 

sons. Hermas therefore does not say n ["I psa " scil. tertia Divinitatis M- 

that the Son of God is the Holy trrcuris, the third Person of the Godhead 

spirit." The reader, however, should just mentioned.] 




48 The Divine Nature of our Lord frequently called the Spirit. 

THE accurately keep 1 up this distinction between the generation 
of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit by the 
m0( ie of spiration 2 ; as the great Grotius has most truly re- 
runt. Ue " marked, in his notes on Mark ii. 8; "The divine nature in 
2 spiratio- Christ is called Spirit, not merely on account of its incorpo- 
35 S |& T*> reality 3 , in the sense in which that name is suitable to the 
Father, but also because they used to designate that which, 
for the purpose of distinguishing between the Word and the 
Holy Ghost, is expressed by the word generare, and sometimes 
among the Greek fathers by the word airavyd^eiv also, by 
the more wide expression spirare ; meaning by this word 
emanati- an emanation 4 of whatever kind, or, as Tertullian designates 
it, 7rpo/3o\r) ; for in his treatise against Praxeas he has spoken 
of the Son as proceeding/ no less than as derived." Be 
that, however, as it may, it is most certain that the Son of 
fisecundam God, the second Person of the Godhead 5 , is in the writings 
h^ cTsta of the Fathers* throughout called by the title of " Spirit," 
sin P Sl Spirit of God," and " Holy Spirit." If there be any one so 
much a stranger to the works of the ancients as not to know 
this, he may consult the author I have just quoted, Hugo 
Grotius, in the passage referred to, where he will find this 
very point demonstrated by many most evident testimonies ; 
and in that numerous collection of quotations our Hermas is 
expressly mentioned as one who had sanctioned this mode of 
expression. To the passages adduced by Grotius, I will my- 
[-54] self add two remarkable passages out of the most ancient 
writers of the Church, viz., the author of the Epistle attri 
buted to Barnabas, and Ignatius. The former in the seventh 
chapter of his Epistle, [p. 21,] thus speaks concerning Christ*; 
GtTKtvosroi "He Himself was about to offer up the vessel of the Spirit 6 
W/U.TOS. a a sacrifice for our s i ns / Where "the vessel of the 
Spirit" is the human nature of Christ, in which His Divi 
nity, which is called Spirit, was received as in a vessel. For 
the author afterwards expressly expounds this vessel of the 
flesh of Christ. Whence (to remark it in passing) may be 
easily gathered, if it were not otherwise clear, the meaning 
of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. ix. 14, 

With which agree the Holy Scrip- pared with 56. 

tures. See Mark ii. 8 ; Rom. i. 3, 4 ; > abrbs forty rwv werepuv apapruo 

1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ix. 14 ; 1 Pet. iii. ^ueAAe aittvos rov Tlvfrvfj-aros 

18 20. See also John vi. 63, com- ptiv 

The passage and context of Hermas examined. 49 

wherein Christ is said to have offered Himself without spot BOOK i. 
to God, "through the eternal Spirit 1 ." That is to say, the 
meaning of the words is that the eternal Godhead of Christ, 
or the Divine Person of the Son of God, offered up to God l 
on the altar of the cross, the human nature, which was per- 
sonally 2 (as they express it) united to Himself. Ignatius again, 2 persona- 
in the very inscription of his Epistle to the Smyrneans", wishes "hyp^ta 
to them "fulness of joy through the immaculate Spirit, the ticaliy." 
Word of God." Where the Word, who is the Son of God, is 
plainly called the "immaculate," or holy, " Spirit a ." 

6. But what need is there of many words on a point which 
is clear? If any one is moved by this most perverse difficulty, 
raised by this anonymous writer, so as still to doubt what Her 
mas meant, in the passage quoted, by " the Son of God, who 
is more ancient than every creature," let him consult the 
passage itself, as it occurs entire in the ninth Similitude, 
[ 1 2 ;] and if I am not mistaken he will at once lay aside all 
doubts. Near the beginning of that Similitude, Hermas s shep 
herd had exhibited to him a very large plain, surrounded by 
twelve mountains ; and in the midst of the plain a huge and 
very ancient rock, higher than those twelve mountains, which 
had a new gate, that seemed to have been lately hewn out, [55] 
and exceeded the sun in brightness. When the shepherd 
had finished the entire similitude, Hermas at last asks for 
the interpretation, and first enquires concerning the rock and 
the gate; "First of all, Sir," he says, "shew me what this 
rock and gate are?" "This rock and this gate," answered 
the shepherd, "is the Son of God." Hermas proceeds in his 
enquiries, " How is it, Sir, that the rock is old, but the gate 
new ?" To whom the shepherd replies 5 , " Hear, O simple one ! 
and understand. The Son of God, indeed, is more ancient 
than any creature, inasmuch as He was present in counsel 
with His Father in order to the formation of all created 
things. But the gate is therefore new, because at the end 

[p- 33.] intellige. Filius quidem Dei omni crea- 

[See infra, ii. 10. 2.] tura antiquior est,ita utin consilio Patri 

Prirnum omnium, domine, inquam, suo adfuerit ad condendam creaturam. 

hoe mihi demonstra; petra haec et por- Porta autem propterea nova est, quia 

ta quid sunt? Audi, inquit, petra haec in consummatione in novissimis die- 

et porta Filius Dei est. Quonam pacto, bus apparuit, ut qui assecuturi sunt 

inquam, domine, petra vetus est, porta salutem, per earn intrent in regnum 

autemnova? Audi, inquit, insipiens, et Dei. [ 12. p. 118.] 

BULL, -n, 

50 The Son of God, spoken of by Hermas } is Christ. 

ox THE [of the world,] in the last days , He hath appeared, that they 
KN~cE X <5T who shall attain unto salvation, may by it enter into the 
THE SON - kingdom of God." Then, to illustrate the similitude of the 
gate, he proposes the example of a city surrounded by a wall, 
and having only a single gate; and adds d ; " As, therefore, 
one cannot enter into that city but by its gate, so neither can 
one enter into the kingdom of God, otherwise than by the 
name of His Son, who is most dear unto Him " and a little 
afterwards ; "But the gate is the Son of God, who is the only 
way of access unto God; for no man shall enter in unto God 
otherwise than by His Son." Immortal God ! is it possible 
that in so clear a light any one can fail to see ! Is there any 
one who bears the name of Christian, who knows not who 
is that Son of God, most dear to His Father, who has ap 
peared in these last days, who is the only gate through 
which there is open to us sinners an access unto God the 
Father, and an entrance into the kingdom of heaven? And 
yet many other expressions follow presently in the same 
[56] similitude, which also most plainly shew who that Son of 
God is, of whom the Shepherd is speaking. For instance, 
20 the Shepherd shews that upon the rock the Son of God 
the tower, which is the Church, is built. And having 
spoken concerning the various gifts and graces of the Holy 
Spirit, (which he had in the similitude 6 shadowed forth under 
the figure of virgins,) he says, " They who have believed in 
God, through His Son, have put on this Spirit ;" where also 
he plainly distinguishes the Son from the Spirit of God, 
that is, from the third Person of the Godhead. He then, a 
little after, makes mention of the Apostle.s and doctors (re 
presented in the similitude by stones) who preached the 
coming of the Son of God. Lastly, concerning the Gentiles 
converted to the faith of the Son of God, (whom he had in 
the similitude symbolised by mountains,) he speaks in these 
words f ; " All the nations, which are under heaven, have heard 

c [Cf. Heb. ix. 26: a7ra| eVl crwre- carissimus ; . . . Porta vero Filius Dei 

Xefa T<V aidvw semel in consumma- est, qui solus est accessus ad Deum ; 

tioiie saeculorum. Vulg. Once in the aliter ergo nemo intrabit ad Deum, nisi 

end of the world hath He appeared, per Filium ejus. [ 12. p. 118.1 

&c -i e ii f qui crediderunt Deo per I ilium 

d Sicut ergo in illam urbem non po- ejus, induti sunt Spiritum hunc. [ 

test intrari, quam per portam ejus ; ita 13. p. 118.] 

nee in regnum Dei potest aliter intrari, f Universse nationes, qua sub cce 

nisi per nomen Filii ejus ; qui est ei sunt, audierunt et crediderunt, et uno 

The testimony of St. Ignatius. 5 1 

and believed, and have been called by the one name of the Son BOOK i, 
of God." Who is there then, I ask again, so blind as not to 6**7. 
see at once that all this is spoken of that Son of God which HERMAS^ 
is Christ ? Surely there can be no one of any piety, but 
must from his heart detest the extreme shamelessness of 
the anonymous writer, when he asserts, that "It is alto 
gether uncertain whether Hernias, when he says, in the 
ninth Similitude, that the Son of God is more ancient than 
any creature, by the Son of God means Christ/- Thus much 
of the testimony of Hernias. 

7. After Hernias let Ignatius come, who was appointed IGNATIUS, 
bishop of Antiochg by the Apostles themselves. That the 
seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius, which were first 
published in Latin by the most reverend Abp. Ussher, from 
two MSS. discovered here in England, and afterwards in 
Greek by the very learned Isaac Vossius from the Medi- 
cean MS., (with the single exception of the Epistle to the 
Romans,) are his genuine remains, has been sufficiently 
proved against Blondel by Yossius and Hammond ; and the 
bishop of Chester 11 , whom I have mentioned above, has so [57] 
very clearly and fully demonstrated the fact in reply to Daille, 
that in the view of fair judges the question about the writ 
ings of Ignatius and the whole controversy is considered to 
be settled. For no lover of truth, who is even moderately 
versed in this sort of learning, will be in the least degree 
induced to doubt respecting those Epistles, by the sophis 
tical " Observations" which an anonymous author 1 , in the 
year 1674, published at Rouen in reply to Pearson. Alto 
gether useless is the attempt of this writer to rally and put 
again in array the broken and scattered forces of his friend 
Daille. Ignatius, then, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, 
having before spoken of Christ, adds as follows*; "Who was 
with the Father before all ages, and in the end appeared." 

nomine filii Dei vocati sunt. [ 17. 1674." The anonymous author was for 

PP ; A v * V- 1 a time unknown J Dr. Allix was after- 

s AD< t the year 67. Cave in Ignat. wards suspected, as appears from a copy 

in the Bodleian library. Placcius, how- 

[13 p. Pearson, m his " Vindicine ever, (i. p. 149,) has sufficiently proved 

Ignatiana?.; ] that the true author was Matthew Lar _ 

[The title of the book is, " Obser- roque. B.] 

vationes in Ignatianas Pearsonii Vin- " t>s irpb aiAvuv iraoh Uarpl 7,v, K al & 

dicias, et m Annotations Beveregii in re Aet tydrn- P- 33. [ 6. p. 19.] 
Canones S. Apostolorum, Rothomagi, 

E 2 


The testimony of St. Justin Martyr. 

We shall, however, adduce from Ignatius in a later part of 


PRE-EXIST- i-ii .. 

ENCEOF the work more numerous and more marked 1 testimonies. 



3 airo<Tr6- 

^ ~ 

8. Justin the philosopher lived and wrote 1 and was crowned 
with martyrdom" 1 some years before the close of the gene- 
ration immediately succeeding that of the Apostles 2 . For the 
generation immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, as 
the distinguished Hen. Valesius 11 has justly observed, extends 
as far as to the times of Marcus Antoninus ; as it was under 
that emperor that Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle, 
(now more than a hundred years old,) obtained the crown of 
martyrdom, that is to say, according to the Roman Martyro- 
logy, on the twenty-sixth of January, A.D. 167. But Justin 
addressed both his Apologies to Antoninus Pius , who died 
in the year 161 of the Christian era; and under the same 
emperor shed his blood for the Christian religion, as the 
same ValesiusP maintains. All, however, are agreed that 
that holy man met death for the faith of Christ before the 
year 167. Hence in his Epistle to Diognetus, Justin calls 
himself "a disciple of the Apostles 3 ." Now this most an- 
cient father and glorious martyr freely throughout his writ 
ings professed and strenuously maintained, both against Jews 
and Gentiles, the doctrine of the pre-existence of the Son 
before the foundation of the world, and of the creation of 
the universe through Him, and that as the common and re 
ceived view of the Church in his time. It will be enough 
here to adduce two passages ; in the Apology, which in the 
editions of his works is called the first, having spoken of 
God the Father, he goes on to speak thus concerning the 
Son q ; " His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, 
who, before all created things, was both in being with Him, 
and begotten [of Him], when in the beginning He created 
and set in order all things through Him," &c. In his Dialogue 

1 He presented his first Apology to 
Antoninus Pius about the year 140. 
Cave in Just. Mart. BOWYER. 

m About the year 164. BOWYER. 

n In his notes on Eusebius, p. 34. 
[ii. 23.] 

[His first Apology was presented 
to Antoninus Pius A.D. 140; his second, 
some years afterwards, to Marcus An- 
toninus. LARDNER. B.] 

P Notes on Eusebius, pp. 66, 67. 
[iv. 16.] 

q 6 5e vibs e/mVou, 6 p.6vos \ty6/j.e- 
vos Kvpiws vlbs, 6 \6~yos Trpb TUV Troi7i/j,d- 
TWI/ /ecu wviav, KOI y^vvui^vos, ore T^V 
o-PX^l v 8* o.vrov iravra eKTiffe Kal e/c(- 
0-^770-6, K.T.\. p. 44 [Apol. ii. 6. p. 
92. See the rest of the passage below, 
iii. 2. 1.] 

Testimonies of Tatian and Athenagoras. 53 

with Trypho he thus writes 8 ; "But this His offspring 1 , that B OOK i. 
was in very deed put forth from the Father, was in being 711. 
with the Father before any created things, and Him the JUSTIN M. 
Father addresses ;" that is, in the words which he had pre- 1 y* vv w- 
viously quoted, " Let us make man," &c. 

9. Tatian 1 , the disciple of Justin, in his Oration against TATIAN. 
the Greeks, in setting forth the opinion held in common by 

the Christians of his time, concerning the Son of God, says u ; 
"We know that He was the Beginning 2 of the world." And 2 rVpxV 
a little afterwards*; " For the heavenly Word, having come 
forth a Spirit from the Father, and a Word from out of the 21 
Intellectual Power, in imitation 3 of the Father that begat a KaT a T V 
Him, made man an image of His immortality." And again, ^w" 1 "- 
after a few intervening words ; " The Word, then, before the 
formation of man, becomes the creator of the angels." 

10. Athenagoras the Athenian, almost contemporary with ATHENA- 
Justin y , a very learned philosopher, and a distinguished or- G< 
iiament of the Christian profession, in his Apology 4 for the 4 Lega- 
Christians, which he addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoni- tlone * 
nus and his colleague in the empire, putting forth the con 
fession of Christians concerning the most holy Trinity, after 
having spoken of God the Father, subjoins 2 ; "By whom, 

the universe was made through Ilis Word, and set in order, 

and is now held together." He also, a little after, calls the 

Son "the first offspring 5 of the Father, as having come forth 5< yeVi^/ta. 

[from Him] to be the idea and energy of all things. " [60] 

11. Lastly, Irenseus* (who in his youth was an attentive 6 IREN^US. 
hearer of Polycarp, and is therefore justly said by Eusebius b 6 dlh s ens - 
to have reached 7 to the first succession after the Apostles) 7 conti- 



ii.~vtf >v \T, ^ 

s aAAa TOVTO TO T(p ovrt airo TOV Tjcre. . . . o [j.v ovv \oyos irpo TTJS TUV 

TiaTpbs irpofiXriQtv yi/vr]/j.a Trpb irdvrwv avo poov /caTacr/ceinjs ayysXwv Srifj-iovpybs 

TUV Tronrifj.drci}v avvrjv rep Tlarpl, KOI yiverai. p. 146. [ 7. p. 249.] 
Toi>T(f} 6 Tittup irpoaofj.ite i. p. 285. y He flourished about the year 177. 

[Ibid., 62. p. 159.] Cave in. Athen. BOWYER. 

4 Flourished about the year 172. z v<p ov yeyswiTai rb irav Sta TOV 

Cave in Tat. BOWYER. [He wrote O.VTOV \6yov, KOU 8jaK:e/<:o0>o]Tc, KCU (rvy- 

about the year 165. LARDNER. B.] Kpart iTai. . . . trp&TOv yfvvri/ut.a TOV Tla- 

TOVTOV iap.fv TOV K6a-fj.ouT-t]v apx nV rpbs, ojy [r&v t/Ai/cco*/] 

p. 145. ad calcem Just. Martyr. Par. i5eo Kal eVep7em elvai irpos\Qwv. Ad 

1615. [ 5. p. 247.] calcem Just. Mart. Par. 1615. p. 10. 

* Xoyos yap 6 eTroupcwoi, FIz/eDjUa [ 10. p. 286.] 

yeyovcas airb TOV TiaTpbs, Kal \6yos e /c a Born A.D. 97, wrote his treatise 

TTJS \oyiKTJs SiWjUews, KOTO TTIV TOV adv. Haereses A.D. 175. Cave. Bow- 

ytwriffavTos avTov TiaTpbs ^(^r\aiv el- YER. 

KOVO. rris aQavacrias Tbv avQpwjrov eTroi- b Hist. Eccles. v. 20. 


Testimony of St. Irenaus. 



has these words concerning the Word, or the Son of God c ; 
" Nor yet can any one of those things, which were consti- 
tuted, and are [now] in subjection, be compared to the Word 
of God, through whom all things were made, who is our Lord 
Jesus Christ. For that, whether they be angels or arch 
angels, or thrones or dominions, they were both constituted 
and created by Him, who is God over all, through His Word; 
John has thus declared. For after he had said, concerning 
the Word of God, that He was in the Father/ he added, 
< all things were made by Him, and without Him was not 
any thing made/ " Again d ; " For these things did the Son, 
who is the Word of God, prepare beforehand 1 from the be- 
ginning ; the Father standing in no need of angels in order 
to effect the creation, and to form man, for whom also the 
creation was made." 

. That the other fathers of the first three centuries taught 2 
the self-same doctrine concerning our Saviour, all are well 
aware who are acquainted with their writings; let those 
who are not versed in them rely on my assurance, until 
with their own eyes they shall have seen the testimonies 
of those writers themselves, which declare far greater things 
than these respecting the Son of God, which I have to quote 
in the following books. Thus far, then, respecting the pre- 
existence of the Son. 

c Sed nee quidquam ex his, quse 
constituta sunt, et in subjectione aunt, 
comparabitur Verbo Dei, per quern 
facta sunt omnia, qui est Dominus nos- 
ter Jesus Christus. Quoniam enim 
sive angeli, sive archangel! ,sive throni, 
sive dominations, ab eo, qui super om- 
nes est Deus, et constituta sunt et facta 

per Verbum ejus, Joannes quidem sic 
significavit. Cum enim _ dixisset 
Verbo Dei, quoniam erat in Patre, ad- 
jecit, Omnia per eum facia sunt, et sine 
eo factum est mhil. .Lib. 111. cap. o, 
[p. 183.] _ 

< Idem iv. 17. [cap. 7. p. 236. J 






1. ON the question of the Consubstantiality of the Son 
of God we shall dwell longer, since it is the hinge on which 
the whole controversy between the Catholics and the Arians 
turns. On this subject, then, we propose, for very copious 
illustration and confirmation, the following Proposition. 


It was the settled and unanimous opinion 3 of the Catholic 3 constans 
Doctors, who nourished in the first three centuries, that the 
Son of God was of one substance 4 , or consubstantial with 
God the Father ; that is, that He was not of any created si l e con : 

, , i / i i substantia- 

or mutable essence, but of altogether the same divine and Us. 
unchangeable nature with His Father; and, therefore, very 
God of very God. 

Before, however, we proceed to the proof of the proposi- [70] 
tion, it will be necessary to premise some observations on 
the true meaning and ancient use of the word ofjuoovo-ios, 
" of one substance," which was placed by the Nicene fathers 

a [The Greek word o^oovcnos has vsedejusdem substantial, or essenti<z,)andi 

been translated by the English words " of one substance." The last has been 

" consubstantial," "of the same sub- preferred, as being that to which we are 

stance, or essence," (when Bp. Bull had accustomed in the Nicene Creed.] 

The meaning of the word O 



2 ejusdem 

3 ejusdem 
sive natu 

4 informari 

5 ejusdem 



in their Creed. The followers of Arius in old time spoke in 
a way so strangely tragical about that term, that at length 
not a few, even amongst the Catholics, wearied out by 
their imptfrtunate clamours, in their love of peace began 
to disapprove of the word, as we learn from Hilary, in his 
book On the Synods, and from other writers. That im 
pious and restless faction pretended, at one time, that 
the phrase 6/noovcnos favoured Sabellianism ; at another, 
by reasoning altogether opposite, that it set up a divi 
sion of the divine essence; and, lastly, what was mere 
trifling, that it introduced a substance prior both to the 
Father and the Son, of which afterwards the Father and 
the Son were equally partakers. I shall clearly shew, how 
ever, that this contest about words 1 was raised by them 
without any just grounds. 

2. By approved Greek writers, that is styled b^oovcriov, 
" consubstantial," which is of the same substance, essence, or 
nature with some other b ; a sense which the very etymology 
of the word carries on the face of it : Porphyry, On Abstinence 
from Animal Food, book i. n. 19, says; "Since the souls 
of animals are o/j,oovo-iot, of the same essence 2 with ours." 
The anonymous author of the celebrated Opinions respecting 
the Soul, published with the Philocalia of Origen, quotes a 
passage of Aristotle, wherein he says; "All the stars are 
ofjuoovo-ia, of the same essence or nature 3 ." In the same 
sense Irenreus frequently uses this word in explaining the 
doctrines of the Valentinians ; for instance, (in book i. chap. 
l e ,) he says that those heretics taught that, "whatsoever is 
. spiritual could not by any means have been formed 4 by Acha- 
moth, since it was o^oovatov, of the same essence 5 with her." 
And presently afterwards he says; "In the first place [they 
say that] she (Achamoth) out of living substance formed the 
parent and king of all things, both of those things which are 
of the same essence with him, (r&v re ojmoovalcw avrw,) and 
of those which were engendered of passion and matter." Again 
in the same chapter after some interval ; that d " Hylicus was 
in image very like unto God, but not of the same essence with 

b [But see the concluding words of avrrjv] noptyaxrcu, eireiSr) opoovcriov fy 

the extract from St. Basil, p. 62:] avrrj.] p. 22. [c. 5. p. 23.] 
c [The words of Trenseus are, a\\a d p. 24. [ 5. p. 27.] 

avrf (s. 

" of one substance;" as used by Greek writers. 57 
Him, (7rapcnr\ijo-i,ov jjuevj aXX ov% o^oovaiov ru> #ec3.)" And 

BOOK n. 

after a few intervening words; "Not even the Demiurge 1,2. 
knew of the offspring of the mother Achamoth, which she HOMOOU- 
brought forth through the contemplation of those angels by 
whom the Saviour is surrounded, in that it was a spiritual off- 
spring of the same essence with its mother, (o/noovo-iov V7rdp%ov 
Ty jjbrjrpl TrvevpaTiKov.}" The same word, used in the same sense 
by the Gnostics, is also found in the extracts from Theodotus, 
at the end of the works of Clement of Alexandria 6 . And here, 
(to mention it by the way,) I am quite of opinion that these 
heretics accommodated this word, which was at that time in 
use among the Catholics in speaking of the most Holy 
Trinity, to their ^Eons, as they did many others. And this 
view receives no slight confirmation from the circumstance, 
that the author of a book entitled IloiiJuav^p^s, a very early 
Christian writer f , and (whatever else his madness may have 
been) far enough removed from the mad dreams of the Gnos 
tics, expressly called the Word, or Son of God, o^oovcrios, "of 
one substance" with the Father, as we shall afterwards shew. 
But to return from our digression. The author of the trea 
tise which bears the title of Questions of the Greeks to the 
Christians, published amongst the works of Justin, thus writes 
concerning the soul g ; " We say that the reasonable soul is 
a spirit endued with thinking powers, vital and possessing 
the power of self-motion ; with which, we say, that both the 
angels and the demons are consubstantial 2 ." Where the [72] 
word ofAoovcnovs is joined with a genitive case, as in the ex- 
tracts from Theodotus ; though it more frequently governs 
the dative case. Agapius in Photius (Bibliothec. Cod. clxxix.) 


is said to have taught amongst other impious doctrines, " that Saiga 
the soul is consubstantial with God 3 ." Afterwards in the 
same place Photius says concerning this same Agapius h ; "With 
shameless irreverence he descants of the sun and the moon 
as of divine things, and proclaims them to be cousubstantial 
with God." Lastly, Theodoret, in his dialogue " 

e p. 796, 797. [c. 42. p. 979. and c. not a Christian, but flourished in the 

50. p. 981.] reign of Ptolemy Philadelphia. B.] 

1 [Who seems to have flourished s p. 203. [p. 538.] 

about the year 120. Cave in Herm. h fatov Se ical (Tf\-f]vrjv 

BOWYER. [The editor of the works of 6o\oye i, Kal d/j.oov<ria KtjpvTTei 

Dionysius of Alexandria, preface, p. [Phot. Bibl. c. 179.] 
xxxvii.. contends that this writer was 

5 8 The sense in which the term was used by 

ON THE adduces a passage from Apollinaris, where he says J ; " Men 
are of the same substance (opoovvioi) with brutes, as touch- 
in g their irrational body ; but of another substance (erepov- 
o-Loi) so far as they are rational/ 

3. That this was the very sense in which the bishops at Nice 
called the Son " of one substance 1 " with the Father, will be 
manifest to all men who are fair minded and not of a temper 
thoroughly contentious, from the very terms of the Nicene 
CreedJ. For after say ing that the Son of God is "begotten of the 
Father, only-begotten," the fathers immediately add the words, 

2 & TTJS ob- that is, of the substance 2 of the Father;" and then they shew 
aias the meaning of that expression in the words which follow ; 

3 @ f ^ e /c God of God 3 , Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, 
6ou,K.r.A. not made Lastly, they subjoin opoouo-iov TW irarpl, "of one 

[73] substance with the Father," as if it comprised all that had 
been before said of the Son. Again, at the end of the Creed 
they shew plainly enough what they meant to be understood 
by the word O/JLOOVCTIOS, when they anathematize the Arians, 
" who assert that the Son of God is of another substance or 
essence 4 , or that He was created, or is capable of change or 
sou- alteration 5 ." It is evident, then, that the Nicene bishops 
K.T.X". called the Son of God "of one substance" with the Father, 
5 , T P^in a sense opposed to the blasphemies of the Arians; that 


is to say, that He is not of any essence that is created, or 
* alienee, other than that 6 of the Father, or changeable ; but altogether 
of the same divine and immutable nature as His Father. In 
this way entirely the word b^oovaios was interpreted by 
those Catholic doctors, who (it is reasonable to suppose) best 
understood the mind and view of the Nicene fathers. For 
thus speaks the great Athanasius, when disputing against 
those Arians, who falsely pretended that they embraced the 
Nicene Creed in all other respects, and only shrunk with 
dread from the term b^oovaios, as new and dangerous k : 
"Now if even after all this even after both the testi 
mony of the bishops of former times, and the subscrip 
tion of their own fathers, they pretend (as if in ignorance) 

1 ol &v9puiroi ro7s a\6yois &ois fyio- k et 5e a\ perk TOffavra,^ pera Kal 

ovffioi Kara rb aSi^a rb &\oyoV erepow- TT?V paprvpiav TWI> ap^a iwv WKTKOTTUV, 

ffioi Se, KaOb \oyiKoi. Kal /xcra ryv viroypa^v T>V tSiw Trare- 

3 [Seethe Greek of the Creed above, pwv, vpoffvoiovvrtu., ws ayvoowr^s, ri]v 

j 3 -i xQiv Qofie iffQai rov opoovcriov, enrarta- 

the Fathers of Nice ; shewn from St. Athanasius. 59 

to dread the word O/JLOOVOTLOS, let them in simplicity and BOOK IT. 
truth confess and believe that the Son is Son by nature; 
and let them also anathematize (as the council enjoined) 

such as say that the Son of God was made or created 1 ; or SION - 
that He was made out of what existed not; or that there l , 
was a time when He was not ; and that He is liable to " 

change and alteration, and is of another substance 2 ; and -2 ^{ 
thus let them flee from the Arian heresy ; and we have full " 7r0(TT - 
confidence that in sincerely anathematizing these things 
they do therein 3 confess that the Son is f cf the substance 3 ev66 s . q . a. 
of the Father/ and of one substance with Him 4 . For on sof ! cto ; 
this account it was that the fathers, after having asserted U 

that the Son is of one substance/ immediately added, 
Those who say that the Son is made or created, or that vibv r$ nd- 
He was made out of what existed not, or that there was a rpl \*j\ 
time when He was not, the Catholic Church anathematizes / 
in order that they may make it known hereby, that this is 
what the expression O^OOVO-LOS, f of one substance/ signifies; 
and the force of the word opoovo-ios is ascertained from [the 
assertion that] the Son is neither created nor made / and 
that whosoever says that He is of one substance/ does not 
believe the Word to be a creature ; and whosoever anathema 
tizes the before-mentioned propositions, does at the same time 5 5 &>o. 
believe the Son to be of one substance with the Father; 
and whosoever says that He is of one substance/ acknow 
ledges the Son of God to be the real and true [Son,] and 
whosoever calls Him the real [Son,] understands that saying, 
I and the Father are one/ " 

5. In the same manner Hilary also, in his treatise On [75] 
Synods against the Arians 1 , says; "Is any one displeased 

ffav Ka <>poveT(ti(rai> airovarepov /u.ev OV 

Kal a\ri6u>s rbz/ vlbi/, </>u<ret vibv, avaQe- via c lva Sta TOVTOOV yviapiauviv, on. rav- 

HaTHTaTwcrav e, us irap-fiyyeiXev rj <rv- TO. crn/j.aivei rb 6/*oov<nov Kal 77 rov 

vobos, rovs \syovTO.s /crtV^a ^ irofrj/ta, ^ ojuoovaiov Swa^cty yivuxTKerai e/c TOV ^ 

c| OVK Syrup,) iiv TTore foe OVK i\v 6 vlbs clvai KTifffj-a. 3) TroirjfJLa rbv vtiv Kal on 

TOV QeoG- ^Kal OTI rptTrrbs Kal a\\OL(aTos 6 Xeywv d^oovaiov ov (ppove? Kriffpa el- 

ctTTt, Kal e| erepas vTroa-rda-ecas- Kal ov- vai riz/ \6yoV Kal 6 avaee/uLaTifav ra 

rcas 4>fvyT(ti(rav airb TT)S Apeiavrjs atp4- Trpottprj/ueva b^oovaiov a/^a qpovii e?*/at 

Kal>, on. yvrjcrius ravra Tbv vlbv T$ Uarpi Kal 6 6/j.ooixnov Ae- 

^aTi^oi/T6S bpoXoyovatv evQvs, e/c ycav, yvr\o-iov Kal aX-riQiriv \eyei rbj/ vlbv 

TTJS ov<rias Kal 6fj.oov(Tiov elvai Tbv vibv TOV &eov Kal 6 yv^aiov \4ycav vofl Tb, 

T$ Uarpi. Sia TOVTO yap Kal ol Trarepes 70; Kal 6 UaTrjp ev eV^f v. In Epist. 

fipTjKOTes ofj.ooixnoi elvai Tbv vibv eV?]- ad African. Episcop., vol. i. p. 940. 

yayov evdvs,Tovs S^e Atyoj/Tas Kriff^a, edit. Paris. 1627. [ 9. vol. i. p. 898.] 
^ Troirjfj.a, f) e| OVK OVTWV, $ $v irore ore Displicet, inquit, cuiquam in sy- 





60 From St. Hilary. His statement as to what is implied 

that the term homoousion [ of one substance ] was adopted 
". in the Nicene council ? If so, he must necessarily be pleased 
that the Arians refused to admit it. For they refused to 
admit the homoousion, that it might be said of God the 
Son, not that He is begotten of the substance of God the 
Father, but that He was formed out of nothing, after the 
manner of created beings. It is nothing new that I am 
saying ; the faithlessness of the Arians is published in many 
works, and witnesses against itself. If on account of the 
irreligion of those who denied [the homoousion], the mean 
ing put on it by those who confessed it at that time was re 
ligious, I ask why at this day it is sought to do away with 
that which at that time it was religious to adopt, because it 
was irreligious to refuse to admit it. If it was religious to 
adopt it, why has an appointment of religion come to be 
matter of accusation, which religiously extinguished irreligion 
by the very means by which irreligion was caused ? Let us 
had in see then what the Nicene council laid down 1 in confessing the 
" ed homoousion, that is the [article] of one substance : not 
surely to bring to the birth that heresy which is conceived of 
an erroneous notion of the homoousion. They will not, I 
imagine, say this, that the Father and the Son divided by 
partition one anterior substance so as to form their own sub 
stance." Then after reciting the Nicene Creed, he thus pro 
ceeds ; " Surely in these words the most holy council of re 
ligious men is not introducing a prior substance, one knows 
not what, such as to have been divided into two; but the 
Son begotten of the substance of the Father. And do we 
at all deny it? or [if we do] what else do we confess? 

nodo Nicsena homoousion esse suscep- 
tum ? hoc si cui displicet, necesse est 
plaeeat, quod ab Arianis est negatum. 
Negatum enim idcirco est homoousion, 
ne ex substantia Dei Patris Deus Fi- 
lius natus, sed secundum creaturas ex 
nihilo conditus prsedicaretur. Nihil no- 
vum loquimur: pluribus edita literis 
ipsa Arianorum perfidia sibi testis est. 
Si propter negantium impietatem pia 
turn fuit intelligentia confitentiutn, 
qusero cur hodie convellatur, quod 
turn pie susceptum est, quia impie 
negabatur ? Si pie susceptum est, cur 
venit constitutio pietatis in crimen, 
quae impietatem pie per ea ipsa, qui- 

bus impiabatur, extinxit ? Videamus 
igitur, quid Nicaena synodus statuerit, 
[ed. Benedict. 1. studuerit,] homoou 
sion, id est, unius substantise, confi- 
tendo : non utique haeresim parturire, de homoousii vitiosa opinione con- 
cipitur. Non, opinor, illud loquentur, 
quid unani anteriorem substantiarn 
Pater et Filius in substantiam suam 
pa;tiendo diviserint. . . . Non hie sanc- 
tissima religiosorum virorum synodus, 
nescio quatn priorem, quse in duos di- 
visa sit, substantiam introducit ; sed 
Filium natum de substantia Patris. 
Numquid et nos negamus? aut quid 
aliud confitemur? Et post caeteras 

in the expression " of one substance." 61 

Further, after setting forth those other statements of our BOOKII. 
common faith, it says, begotten, not made; of one sub- 5,6. 
stance with the Father/ which they express in Greek by the HoMoouT 
word ofjioovcnos. What opening is there here for an errone- SION> 
ous meaning? The Son is declared to be begotten of the "- - 
substance of the Father, not made, lest the begetting of 
the Godhead be accounted a handy-work of creation. And 
therefore it is, f of one substance/ not as though He sub 
sist singly and alone, but to express that [the Son], being 
begotten of the substance of God, hath not His subsist 
ence from any other ; nor yet that He subsists in any differ 
ence of [a] diverse substance. Or will it be said that our 
faith is not this, that His subsistence is not from any other 
[than the Father,] and that it is not a dissimilar subsist 
ence? Or does the homoousion here witness to any thing 
other than that there is one essence of the two, and that 
no way dissimilar, according to natural propagation, because 
the essence of the Son is not from any other [than the 
Father] : and inasmuch as it is not from any other, it will 
be correct to believe that both are of one essence ; because 
the Son hath the substance which was begotten from no other 
original than from the nature of the Father." 

6. The great Basil, in his three hundredth Epistle" 1 , arguing 
against such as embraced the Nicene Creed in all other par 
ticulars save that they were unwilling to admit the expression 
" of one substance l ," after other things, which will be brought > 61*006*10*. 
forward hereafter in a more suitable place, thus writes"; "And 
forasmuch as there were still at that time some who affirmed 
that the Son was brought into being out of what existed not, 

communis fidei expositions ait, Natum, testatur homoousion, quam ut una 

nonffictum, unius substantial cum. Patre, atque indissimilis duum sit secun- 

quod Grace dicunt bpoova-iov. Ciuse dum naturae propaginem [ed. Bene- 

hic vitiosge intelligentiae occasio est ? diet 1. progeniem] essentia, quia 

natus esse de substantia Patris Filius, essentia Filii non sit aliunde; qua? 

npn factus, praedicatur; ne nativitas quia aliunde non est, unius recte esse 

divinitatis factura sit creationis. Id- ambo credentur essentiae; quia sub- 

circo autern unius substantiae; non ut stantiam nativitatis Filius non habeat 

unus subsistat, aut solus, sed ut ex nisi de paternae auctoritate naturae ? 

Bubstantia Dei natus non aliunde sub- pp. 241, 242. ed. Basil. 1570. [ 83. 

sistat; neque ut in aliqua dissidentis p. 1197.] 
substantiae diversitate subsistat. Aut m [Ep. lii. 2.] | 

numquid non haec fides nostra est, n Ka \ 6 VetSr? e OVK ovrwv is T& elvai 

ut non aliunde subsistat, neque quod traprixQai rbv vibv ert r6re faa.v ol Ae- 

indissimilis subsistat? Aut aliud hie yovres, Iva nal ravrriv *Vre>a><n r^v 

62 From St. Batil; the Semiarians at Antioch. 

ON THE to cut off this impiety also [the fathers of Nicsea] used in ad 
dition the words of one substance-/ for the union of the 
Son with the Father is without time or interval 1 . The pre 
ceding words, indeed, sufficiently prove that this was their 
To S ,--uiim- meaning; for after they had said light of light/ and that 
ten-upted." the gon WRS Begotten of the substance of the Father, not 
made/ they introduced after this the words of one sub 
stance/ shewing, as by an example, that whatever defini 
tion of light one would give in the case of the Father, the 
same will apply also in the case of the Son; inasmuch as 
true light compared with true light (as respects the mere 
notion of light) will allow of no difference. Since, therefore, 
[77] the Father is light, without original, and the Son is light, 
begotten ; and both of them are severally light, [the fathers] 
justly used the term of one substance/ in order to set forth 
the equal dignity of their nature : for not those things which 
are near akin 2 to one another, are said to be of one sub 
stance/ as some have conceived ; but when both the cause, 
and that which has its being from the cause, are of the 
same nature, they are [in that case] said to be of one sub 

7. Moreover, that this is the true meaning of the expression 
"of one substance," the semi-Arians themselves at length ad 
mitted, in the council of Antioch, [held] under the emperor 
Jovian ; instructed, it would seem, by Meletius, who presided 
in that council ; for that he was a true Catholic is abundantly 
certain from Basil s statement in his fifty-second, fifty-third, 
and following Epistles , and in his three hundred and twenty - 
[78] fifth P to Epiphanius. For they in their synodical letter to the 
excellent emperor have these statements respecting the Nicene 
council q ; "Whereas also that which seems to some to be a 

d(re/3etai/, rb bjjioovffiov irpoo-fip-f]Kao-ii>. eVel ovv effnv &va.pyov (pus^o Uar^p, yev- 

&Xpovos yap Kal a8id<rraTos r? rov vlov vrjrbi oe (pus 6 vtbs,<p&s 5e Kaltyws eKa- 

jrpbs rbv Uarepa ffwaQeia,. SryAoISe Kal repos, 6/j.oovaiov &eav$iKaiws,1varb rrjs 

ra Trpo\afi6vra prjuara, ravrriv eivai (pvaecos dfJL&ri/MV vapoffr-flffteffiv. ov yap 

rwv avopu>f ryv Stdvoiav. etirovres yap ra a$e\(pa a\\"f]\ois 6fj.oovaia \eyerai, 

(pus eK (pcarbs, Kal e/c TT)S ovvias rov oirep rives virei\-f](j)ao-iv^ aAA orav Kal rb 

Uarpbs rbv vlbv yeyevv^o-Qai, oi/xl 8e CUTIOJ/, Kal rb e /c rov alriov rT)v virapfyv 

TveivoiriadaL, eTr-fjyayov rovrois rb 6/J.oov- e x oi/ > T ^ s avrrjs vtrdpxy (pvcrecas, 6p.oov- 

o-ioV irapaoeiKvvi/Tes, ori ovirep av ris ffia \eyerai. vol. iii. p. 292. edit. 

awooy (pcarbi \6yov eVt Uarpbs, ovros Paris. 1638. [vol. iii. p. 145.] 

apfji6ffei Kal eirl vlov. (pus yap a.\r,Qivbv, [Ep. lxix.,_xxv.] 

Trpbs (pas aXriQivbv, Kar avr^v rov (pcarbs P [Ep. cclviii.] 

TV tvvoiw, ovoefj.iav ejei irapa\\ayf)v. q 6ir6re Kal rb OOKOVV eV aurr? rial 

The expression not new ; testimony of Eusebius. 63 

[new and] strange term in it, we mean that " of one sub- BOOK n. 
stance/ hath received a safe interpretation among the fathers, 
intimating that the Son was begotten of the substance of the 
Father, and that in substance He is like unto the Father: SION - 
and the term substance is not taken [by the fathers of the 
council] as if there were any idea of passion 1 with respect to i v j^ ovs 
that ineffable generation, or according to a certain Greek Tiv6s 
use of the word ; but for the purpose of overthrowing the 
impious doctrine, which was presumptuously ventured on by 
Arius, of the Son being out of what existed not." I ap 
prehend that by this time all sufficiently understand what is 
the legitimate sense of the expression " of one substance/ 
as it stands in the Nicene Creed. 

8. But further, that this word was not first invented by 
the Nicene fathers, nor yet used by them in a new sense in 
the question about the Godhead of the Son (as many have 
thought), but that it had been passed on from the genera 
tions which preceded to those which followed, is expressly tes 
tified by Eusebius in his Epistle to his own diocese of Csesarea. 
His words are as follows 1 ; "We were aware that some learned 
and distinguished bishops and writers [even] among the an 
cients made use of the term, Of one substance/ in treating 
of the Godhead of the Father and the Son." There is [79] 
no doubt that Eusebius had access to many monuments of 
primitive antiquity, which are not now extant any where, 
but have long ago perished, from which he could have 
most fully established this assertion of his ; for even we 
(notwithstanding the great and deplorable wreck of ancient 
writers) are not without testimonies such as may sufficiently 
prove it. Tertullian, at the beginning of his treatise against 
Praxeas 3 , expressly says that the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost are "of one substance ;" and affirms 2 that this is uniussub- 
moreover contained " in the rule of faith" and " the mystery 8tantia? - 

{eW foofia, rb rov 6f*oov(riov Qafjtev, ro\^64vro 5 Apefy. Apud Socrat. 

090X01* Trv X r)Ke Trapa ro?s varp&nv H. E. iii. 25 ; et Sozom. H. E vi 4 
ep/iTjpems, ffW*U>*t<ms on e rfjs ov- [eVel/cai] rG>v wa\aiw TIV&S \oyl- 

fftas TOV Uwrpte t vfa iytv^, Ka l ovs Ka \ eV^a^s eVur/foVow Kal trvy- 

dTt f 6fMios /car ovcrw ry Uarpi- otre ypa^as tyvunev, M rrjs rov Tlarpbs 

6e cos wd8ovs TLvbs Trepl TT/I/ app^ov yev- Ka l vlov 8eo\oylas T$ rov 6/uoovaiov ffvy- 

wio-iv eirivoovpevov, ovre Kara nva x pri- xpiiaa^vovs bv6^.an. Apud Socrat. 

(rive \\yviK-nv \ap./3avT at [ro?s TrarpdcTi] H. E. i. 8. [p. 25.] 
P 0">Ma rris ovcrias- fls avarpo^v fe [See below, cb. vii. 6, where the 

rov e OVK ovruv nepl rov vlov aafpas words of Tertullian are quoted.] 



1 sacra- 



2 dum. 

3 opere 

64 Of one substance" used by TertulL, Origen, Dionys. Alex. 

of the dispensation 1 / which was observed and kept by the 
Catholics. But what, I pray you, does the Latin expression 
unius substantiae denote, but the same as the Greek bpoovaiost 
nor have I any doubt that Tertullian, as he almost every 
where studiously imitates the Greek ecclesiastical writers 
(as learned men are well aware 1 ,) so here also translated the 
word opoova-ios which he had found used with respect to 
the most holy Trinity, in writers of that class, of earlier date 
than himself by the words of his mother tongue, unius 
substantial. Rufinus (On the Adulteration of the Works of 
Origen) testifies that this word was often met with in the 
writings of Origen; when 2 he says u , " Is it possible that he 
could have forgotten himself in the same portion 3 of the same 
book, sometimes (as we have said) in the very next chapter? 
For example ; after he has declared the Father and the Son. 
to be of one substance, (which in Greek is expressed by 
ofjboovaios,} could he possibly, in the very next chapters, 
pronounce Him to he of another substance and created, 
whom he had just before asserted to be begotten 4 of the 
very nature of God the Father?" Pamphilus adduces an in 
stance [of his use of it] in his Apology v , where he sets before 
us the following words of Origen, out of his Commentary on 
the Epistle to the Hebrews ; "These illustrations most plainly 
shew, that the Son hath a communion 5 of substance with 
the Father. For an effluence 6 seems to be consubstantial 
(o/jioova-ios,) i. e. of one substance with that body from 
which it is either an effluence or vapour." Athanasius, in 
7 S ententia. his treatise On the Views 7 of Dionysius of Alexandria, in 
opposition to the Arians, states that this Dionysius, (who 
was a disciple of Origen,) in an Epistle to his namesake 
Dionysius of Rome, said that Christ was " of one substance" 
with God, ofjLoovvios rS Oew*; and that Dionysius of Rome 

4 natum. 


6 commu- 

6 aporrhcea. 

* B. Rhenanus says of Tertullian, 
that from his constant reading of Greek 
authors he had imbibed so much of 
Greek forms of speech, as to be unable 
to forget them even in writing his La 

u Numquid in eodem opere ejusdem 
libri, interdum, ut diximus, statim in 
consequent! capitulo oblitus sui esse 
potuit? V. G. ut qui Patrem et Filium 
unius substantise, quod Graece OMOOU- 
aiov dicitur, designavit, in consequen- 

tibus statim capitulis alterius esse sub 
stantial et creatum poterat dicere eum, 
quern paulo ante de ip?a natura De 
Patris pronuntiaverat natum 1 

v Quse similitudines manifestissime 
ostendunt, communionem substantiae 
esse Filio cum Patre: aporrhoea enim 
6/j.oova-ios videtur, id est, unius substan 
tise cum illo corpore, ex quo est vel 
aporrhoea vel vapor. [c. 5. p. 33.] 

x [Vide Dionysii Opera, p. 90.] 

Further evidence of its use prior to the Nicene Council. 65 

had required of him to state this in plain terms, Now it is BOOK n. 
clear, from this statement of Athanasius, that even in the H s . * 

time of these Dionysii the term O/JLOOVCTIOS was in frequent HOMOOU- 
use ; and that such as rejected ! it (which was falsely laid to the , abh or . 
charge of the Alexandrian Dionysius) incurred the censure of ruisse. 
the Church. I am therefore astonished at the ignorance or 
impudence of Sandius, whichever it be, in saying y , that even 
Athanasius was amongst those who acknowledged that the 
term oyu-ooucrto? was ultimately 2 fabricated in the Nicene coun- 2 demum. 
cil. Nay, in another passage also, this very Athanasius says 
expressly, that this word, as it stands in the Nicene Creed, 
was "approved by the testimony of the bishops of former 
times," i. e. of those who were anterior to the council of Nice. 
Look back at the passage which we quoted a little above 
from Athanasius, out of his letter to the bishops of Africa. 
But if any doubt the good faith of the great and excellent 
Athanasius, there is extant at this day an epistle of that very 
Dionysius of Alexandria against Paul of Samosata, in which 
he expressly says, that 2 "the Son was declared by the holy 
fathers to be of one substance with the Father." These [81] 
words of Dionysius also plainly shew that the holy fathers 
who preceded him had used the term oftoovcrios of the Son ; 
and thus they remarkably confirm the testimony of Eusebius, 
which I just now quoted. In short, from the circumstance 
that the martyr Pamphilus in his Apology for Origen, (which, 
as we shall afterwards shew, rightly bears the name of Pam 
philus,) contends that Origen expressly said that the Son 
was "of one substance" with the Father, and therefore was 
catholic in the article of the Godhead of the Son ; from this 
very circumstance, I say, it is most evident that the word 
ofjboovcrios was in use among Catholics even prior to the 
Nicene council, and employed in explaining the doctrine 
concerning the Godhead of the Son; for this Pamphilus 
received the crown of martyrdom a some years before the 
council of Nice, in the persecution, that is, under Maximin, 
as Eusebius, On the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 7, and Jerome, 
in his Catalogue, expressly testify. After this, perhaps it may 

y De Script. Eccles., pp. 39, 40. edit. torn. xi. p. 277. [Opera, p. 214.] 

secund. et pp. 121, 122. a In the year 309. Cave in Pam. 

z 6fj.oovffioi^ T$ Uarpl tlpyufvov virb BOWYER. 
rfov ayiwv irareptov. Biblioth. Patr., 



66 The expression had been repudiated by the Council of 

be worth while to observe, that the author of the book entitled 
STIA- HoipavSpr]!?, and attributed to Mercurius Trismegistus, in 
LITY OF t he first chapter, expressly says that " the Word of God is of 
-~-- one substance 1 with the Father." It is true that Petavius 


2 solide. has proved on solid 2 grounds that the writer was an im 
postor, that is, not Trismegistus himself, but a Christian 
falsely assuming his name; yet Petavius also acknowledges 11 , 

3 circulato- that that forger 3 was of very early times, and lived shortly 

rem- after the Apostles ; which is also clearly shewn by testimonies 
being cited from him by Justin Martyr. 

9. Some persons, however, have thought that there is a very 
strong presumption against the term O/JLOOVO-LOS ( <c of one sub 
stance") in the fact, that the council of Antioch, which was held 
against Paul of Samosata about sixty years before the Nicene, 
[82] expressly repudiated the term. Theologians, both ancient 

4 de hac.. . and modern , have been at pains 4 to account for the contra 
dictory language of these councils. In accordance with my 
design, I shall speak only of the ancients. Hilary, towards 
the end of his book On the Synods, against the Arians, states 
that Paul of Samosata confessed that word bpoovcnos in a 
bad sense, and that, on this account, the fathers of the coun 
cil of Antioch rejected the term. "The Samosatene," he 
says d , " did ill when he confessed the homoousion. But did 
the Arians do better in denying it?" In what sense, how 
ever, could the Samosatene have confessed it ? Petavius gives 
the following answer e : "He might have admitted the term 
in the same sense as Sabellius, with whom he coincided in 
opinion on the doctrine of the Trinity ; that is to say, by 
laying down the substance and essence 5 of the Godhead to 
tan " et be singular, which involved the entire separation of Christ 

oinrlcw. b ^^ T ^ . ^ ^ 3 ^ ^ consentaneus erat; uti scilicet unicam 
[The editor of the works of Diony- substantiam divinitatis et overlay pone- 
sius Alex. (Pref. p. xl. Sec.) proves by ret, a qua plane separandus esset Chris- 
many arguments that the fathers of tus ; qui ne Apoofoios Deo constitue- 
Antioch did not by any means repu- retur, in tempore Deus esse ccepi^sset. 
diate the word dpoofoios. B. See Dr. Quod enim eodem sensu fyoofoiw 
Burton s view fully stated in Mr. Fa- Verbum esse Samosatenus affirmarir, 
ber s Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, quo Sabellius, ibidem Hilarius [de Sy- 
vol. ii.p. 302.] nod., 81. p. 1196.] ostendit, cum il- 

d Male, inquit, homoousion Samosa- lum dicit bfj-oovaiov esse Fihum d 

tenus confessus est; sed numquid me- cuisse, quod in Aritiochena synodo Pa- 

lius Ariani negaverunt? [Hil. de Sy- tres usurpari vetuerunt, quia per hanc 

nod 886 p 1200.1 unius essenti/z nuncupationem solitarium 

e Ea ratione potuit admittere, qua atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et Filium 

Sabellius, cui in Trinitatis dogmate prtedicabat.De Trin. iv. 5. 2. 

Antioch, not because it was expressive of Sabellianism. 67 

from it; who, that He might not be set down as of one sub- BOOKH. 
stance with God, must have had His beginning as God in 8, V 
time. For, that the Samosatene asserted the Word to be of HOMOOU- 
one substance in the same sense as Sabellius, is shewn by S1 
Hilary in the same passage, when he says, that Paul had 
taught that the Son is of one substance J [with the Father,] 
a statement which the fathers in the council of Antioch for 
bad to be used, inasmuch as by this use of the term f of one 
essence/ he pronounced the Father and the Son to be one 
only single and solitary Being V" But this, and I say it with all 2 solita- 
deference to the venerable Hilary, does not seem to me to be 
by any means likely. For, granting that the Samosatene here- sibi - 
tic held precisely the same opinion touching the Son of God as 
Sabellius, (a position, however, which might with good grounds 
be questioned,) yet surely Sabellius himself would never have 
willingly affirmed that the Son is consubstantial (O/JLOOVCTIOS} 
with the Father, but rather identically-substantial (ravroov- 
(7io9.) Besides, if the Sabellians before the council of Nice 30 
had used the word oftoovcrios in order to spread their heresy, 
it is no way credible, that the fathers of Nice, who certainly 
abhorred the Sabellian, no less than the Arian, heresy, would 
have inserted that word in their Creed. Sandius f , however, 
confidently maintains "that the followers of Sabellius em 
braced the term of one substance 3 /" that is, of course, before 3 homoou 
the Nicene council, for if this be not his meaning, his assertion S1< 
would be nothing to the purpose. Hence in another place 
he expressly says, that Sabellius himself used the word " of 
one substance." Let us see by what evidence he proves this 
assertion of his : " For they," his words are, (( who repudiated 
the term of one substance/ affirmed that those who ap 
proved of it, were introducing afresh the opinions of Monta- 
nus and Sabellius, (observe their agreement in doctrine,) and 
accordingly they called them blasphemers. Socrat. Eccl. 
Hist. i. 23, and Sozom. ii. 18." My reply is, that Socrates 
and Sozomen, in the places cited, do, it is true, relate that 
after the Nicene council there were great contentions con 
cerning the word o/juoovcnov amongst the very bishops who 
subscribed to the Nicene Creed, especially between Eusebius 
Pamphili and Eustathius of Antioch ; the former with his 

1 Enucl. Histor. Ecclesiast. i. p. 112. 
F 2 

68 Evidence that the expression " Of one Substance" 

1 VTTOffTO.- 



* propi- 

3 purum 

4 in fla- 



party charging Eustathius and his party, who asserted the 
article " of one substance," with Montanism and Sabelli- 
anism ; the latter, again, objecting against them [that they 
introduced] the polytheism of the heathens; both sides in 
the meantime professing their belief to be this s ; " That the 
Son of God has a proper subsistence and being; and that 
there is one God in three persons V For this we have the 
express testimony of Socrates, and that derived from a care 
ful reading of the tracts and letters which those bishops wrote 
(in answer) each to the other. It must however be especially 
observed, that Eusebius and his party no w r ay pretended that 
the word o/^oovaios in itself, or according to its proper signifi 
cation, went to confirm the heresy of Sabellius, much less that 
the Nicene fathers wished, by its use, to give the Christian 
world to taste [the cup of 2 ] Sabelliariism ; but that he merely 
said this, that Eustathius and his party, who embraced the 
term " of one substance," wished to introduce Sabellianism ; 
that is, so interpreted the word as to make it altogether to 
favour the Sabellian heresy. Indeed it is expressly said by 
Socrates h , that Eusebius, in the very letter in which he ac 
cused Eustathius of Sabellian error in his use of the word 
6/juoovcnos, openly professed that " he himself did not trans 
gress the Creed of Nicsea." Whether Eusebius charged 
Eustathius justly with Sabellianism, there is no need for us 
to enquire anxiously. Certainly, however, Marcellus, who was 
the teacher of Eustathius, maintained pure 3 Sabellianism 
in his writings, as is perfectly clear from the books of Euse 
bius, which he composed against him. Therefore Hilary, (in 
his book to Constantius,) and Basil the Great, (in his letters 
52, 74, and 78 *,) and others, expressly class Marcellus amongst 
heretics. The circumstance of his being, at least for a con 
siderable time, in very warm favour 4 with the great Athana- 
sius, must, I think, altogether be ascribed to his cunning and 
hypocrisy, and to the zeal and ardour which he displayed 
against the Arians. With regard to Eustathius himself, (al- 

Wir6<TTa.r6v re Kal fvvir 
r})v vlbv ctvai TOV ecu, eVa re e^v eV 
rptalv vTroardfretnv eli/at. I am per 
suaded that Eustathius did not use the 
very word viroffraaeo i : but some other 
term which Socrates considered equi 

valent to it. 

h [Eu<T6/3jos fj.fv, TT)V tv NiKcua iri- 
(rnv ov <f>r)(n irapa.fia.ii eiv StajSaAAet 8e 
Ev<TTa9ioi ws TV ScgSeAA/ou 5o|cw elff- 
ayovra. Socrat. E. H. i. 23.] 

1 [Ep. Ixix., cclxiii., and cxxv.] 


was not a characteristic of Sabellianism. 69 

though I should be unwilling without due grounds at all to 
detract from the reputation or estimation of a man who was 
held in much esteem by very many Catholics, and who was 
also ennobled by the friendship of the great Athanasius,) still SION - 
I candidly confess that I do not know how it could have come 
to pass, that the bishops assembled at Antioch, although they 
may have been the greater part of them Arians, singled 
him out from all those who asserted the article " of one sub 
stance," for the charge of " holding rather the opinions of Sa- 
bellius, than those which the council of Nice decreed ;" and [85] 
on that account deposed him from the see of Antioch, (which 
Socrates witnesses to from the relation of others, although he 
expresses, on very slender grounds indeed, his own doubts of 
their trustworthiness, i. 24,) unless he had himself given them 
at least some handle and occasion for a charge of such a na 
ture. What is to be said to the fact, that Cyrus, bishop of 
Beroea, who, (according to the relation of George of Laodicsea, 
the Arian, in the same passage of Socrates,) was the man 
who accused Eustathius k of Sabellianism before the council, 
was a Catholic, and was afterwards himself deposed by the 
Arians on account of his maintaining the Catholic doctrine, 
as Athanasius testifies in his letter To those who were living 
in Solitude ? George indeed, says, that this Cyrus also was 
deposed for his Sabellian doctrine ; but by Sabellian doctrine 
the heretic in that place had no other idea than the doctrine 
" of one substance," as Valesius has correctly observed 1 ; 
and this observation easily reconciles the apparent discre 
pancy ! in the statement of George, which perplexed Socrates. 
But how does all this make for the purpose of Sandius ? 
What sort of conclusion, I ask, is this ? Eusebius Pamphili 
accused Eustathius of Antioch, of so interpreting the expres 
sion "of one substance," which was correctly understood by 
the Nicene fathers, as to subserve the introduction into the 
Church of the heresy of Sabellius ; therefore the followers of 

k I am quite of opinion that Eusta- called Eustathians, were shimned by 

thins was an over- pertinacious main- other catholics as Sabellians : and 

tainerofthe one hypostasis (/ui a UTTOO-TCI- thence followed a great schism at An- 

ffis) in the Godhead ; at the same time tioch. See Petavius, de Trinit. iv. 4. 

that perhaps he meant by the term hy- 10, &c. 

postasis nothing else than essence or See the note of Valesius on So- 

substance (ovcriav} : on which account crates, p. 14. [i. 24. p. 58.] 
also the party, which after him were 

70 Athanasius account of the grounds on which 

ON THE Sabellius, before the council of Nice, employed and embraced 
STANTIA- the very expression " of one substance." The incidental ob- 
THK Y bON. servation of Sandius, on the agreement of Moiitanus and Sa- 
[861 bellius in their doctrine respecting the most Holy Trinity, 
we will consider by and by, in a more suitable place. I there 
fore say again, that it seems to me by no means probable that 
the Sabellians ever used the expression "of one substance" of 
their own accord and willingly ; although, after the word had 
been sanctioned by the authority of the Nicene council, they 
endeavoured to drag it (as it were) by force 1 into the service 
of their own heresy. For the expression " of one substance" 
in itself is so far from agreeing with the Sabellian heresy, 
that it is plainly repugnant to it ; as was excellently observed 
by the great Basil (Epistle 300) in these words; "This ex 
pression corrects also the evil of Sabellius ; for it takes away 
the identity of the personal subsistence 2 , and introduces the 
^ ea f *ke P ersons as complete ; since a thing is not itself 
o-ews. of one substance 7 with itself, but one thing with another." 
I therefore conclude that Paul of Samosata, as agreeing 
with Sabellius on the doctrine of the Trinity, did not use the 
words " of one substance" for the purpose of expressing his 
heresy : and that the fathers assembled at Antioch did not 
on that account reject it. 

10. No one could have understood this question better than 
the great Athanasius ; for he was himself present at the coun 
cil of Nice, where, when they were most carefully examining 
all points respecting the article " of one substance," this main 
objection (concerning the definition of the fathers in the 
council of Antioch) must without any doubt have been among 
the first to be discussed. He declares in his book, On the 
Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, that Paul of Samosata did 
not acknowledge the article " of one substance," but rather, 
out of that term, which had been employed by the Catholics 
in explaining the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son, con 
trived a sophism, for the purpose of overthrowing that doc 
trine; and that it was for this reason that the fathers at 
3 suppri- Antioch decided that the word should be suppressed 3 . We 

mendam. , 

m OUTTJ Se T) (pavr) Kal rb TOV 2a;8eA- ou 70^ avrb TI ecrriv eavr<p Ofioownov, 
Aiou KaKbv firavopOovTai uvaipel ybp aAA 1 e repo;/ kreptft [Ep. lii. 3. vol. iii. 
TT/J/ TouT^TTjra TTJS u7ro(rTa(rea>s, Kal etV- p. 146.] 
dyft rcAetW rwv irpocrwjruv 

the expression " Of one Substance" was rejected at Antioch. 71 

will quote his own words, which most clearly explain this whole BOOK n. 
subject, but only in Latin, contrary to my custom, because the C ^ V {Q 
extract is a long one n . Athanasius then, in that work, after j-g 7 -i 
shewing, that, prior to the synod of Antioch, the phrase " of 
one substance" had received the sanction of Dionysius, 
bishop of Rome, and of a council of bishops assembled 
under him at Rome to consider the case of Dionysius of 
Alexandria, and had further been acknowledged also by that 
Dionysius of Alexandria himself, afterwards proceeds to 
treat fully of the discrepancy between the councils of 
Antioch and Nice ; "If, then, any one blames i the Nicene * culpat. 
bishops as having spoken contrary to what their predeces 
sors had decreed, he may also with (equal) justice 2 blame the 
seventy (bishops)" who were assembled at Antioch against pari Jure 
Paul of Samosata, as not " having kept to the statements of 
their predecessors ; for such were the two Dionysii and the 
(other) bishops, who were assembled on that occasion at Rome. 
But it is not right to blame either these or those; for they 
all cared for the things of Christ 3 , and all directed their zeal 3 iir P 4- 
against the heretics. One party, indeed, condemned the 
Samosatene, and the other the Arian, heresy; but both 
these and those denned rightly and well according to the 
matter before them. And as the blessed Apostle, in his vere> 
Epistle to the Romans, said, the law is spiritual, the law is Rom. 
holy; and the commandment holy and just and good; and 12 
yet a little after added, for what the law could not do, in Rom. 
that it was weak/ &c. . . . and yet no one would charge the 3 
saint, on this account, with writing what was inconsistent 
and contradictory, but would rather admire him as writing 

n [The Greek is here supplied, see avrw yap r,crav ol Aiovvffioi, Kal ol eV 

the next note. ] ^ Po^u?? rb ryviKavra cruj/6A0Ji/Tes 4vl- 

efrre/) o^jue^ercu TLS rots eV Nt- CTKOTTOL. dAA ovre rotrovs, ofce e/cet- 

Kaia vvveXQovaw, &s ipr)Ko<n irapa TO. vovs offiov airid(ra<T6af iravres yap eirpe- 

U^avra rots -jrpb awrj/[The old read- aftsvov ra Xpurrov, Kal iraj/res 

ng was ws eip-rjKdci -navva. ra 56avTa eVx^f acrt Kara r&v alperiKwv Kal ot 

ro?s irpb avruv, which Bp. Bull, not per rlv 2apc<ra,Tfa, ol Se rfy Apctavfr 

without cause, seems to have corrected aipeviv KartKpivav. 6pOu>s Se Kal ovroi 

to us nb ip7]K6(ri, K.T.A. The Bene- /ca/cea-oi, /cat /caAws irpbs rr) 

dictine reading however is better, d>s MBeffiv yeypdQeuri. Kal 

flpr)K6ai irapa ra86avra. B. This has pios air6arro\os Pca/j.aiois . 

been followed in the translation. Some Acoi/, tXeytv, 6 v6/j.os Tri/(;vv.ariK6s eari 

of the words added in the Latin version Kal 6 v6/j.os ayios" Kal, r) eVroA?? ayia, 

of this extract given by Bull, are re- Kal Sutaia, Kal ayae^ Kal ^r b\iyov, 

tained in^ parentheses.] 6 avrbs juf>- rb yap oSiWroj/ rov VO/JLOV eV $ foBevff 

i]/atr &v elKoroos Kal rots e&Sofj.-rjKovra, . . Kal owe av ris alridaairo rbv ayiov us 

6ri p)i ra rwv irpb nvrwv e^vXa^av -rrpb evavria Kal /j.ax6[j.eva ypd^ovra, dAAa 




1 diversi- 

2 Siavoiav 
meutem ac 


CK Tr\s ou- 



07?s, verum 



7 eK O.VTOV. 

72 St. Athanasius on the apparent opposition of the 

unto each suitably to the occasion, &c. . . . ; so also, if the 
fathers of the two councils used different 1 expressions in 
speaking of the term of one substance/ still we ought not 
for that reason by any means to dissent from them, but to 
search oat their meaning and view 2 ; by doing which we shall 
certainly discover that both councils agree in opinion. For 
they who deposed the Samosatene, apprehending 3 1 One sub 
stance in a corporeal sense ; Paul (that is) wishing to so 
phisticate, and saying, "If Christ did not of man become 
God, then is He of one substance with the Father; whence 
it necessarily follows, that there are three substances, one 
which is prior 4 , and the other two which have their origin 
from it : on this account with good reason, guarding against 
sophism such as this on the part of Paul, they said that Christ 
was not of one substance ; for the Son is not so related to 
the Father as he imagined. They, however, who anathema 
tized the Arian heresy, having perceived the craft of Paul, 
and having considered that the expression of one substance 
has not this meaning, when applied to things incorporeal, and 
especially to God ; knowing, moreover, that the Word is not 
a creature, but an offspring of the substance 5 [of the Father,] 
and that the substance of the Father is the origin, root and 
fountain of the Son ; and He was the very true 6 likeness of 
Him that begat ; not as of separate growth, as we are, is He 
parted from the Father : but as of Him 7 , a Son, He exists un 
divided ; as the radiance is to the light ; and having likewise 
before their eyes the illustrations of Dionysius,that of the foun 
tain for instance, and (what else is contained in) his Apology 

apfiLo6vrS Trpbs 

eKaffTOUS eTTKTTeAAOI Ta, K.T.A., . . . OVTWS 

el a/j.(poT eptoV T>V ffvv6^u>v ol iraTepes 5ta- 
(popus ep.vr]jj.6vevaav irepl TOV 6/j.oovaiov, 
ov -)(pT] irdvTws T)[ SiacpepeaOai irpbs 
avrovs, a\\a TT\V Siavoiav avrcav epeu- 
vqv, KOL irdvrws eu/Jir/0 o J uej a J u.(|)OTepaji 
TUV ffvvoScav rrjv 6/j.6voiav. ol yap 
rbv ZafJ-oaaTfa /ca0eA<Wes, o-w^uaTtKws 
eKXa/J.fia.i ovTes rb b^oovaiov, TOV Tlav- 
\ov <ro(pieo-dai re 6e\oi/ros Kai \eyov- 
ros, el ,U7) e| avdpwirov yeyovev 6 Xpi- 
ffT-bs ebs, OVKOVV 6/j.oovai6s e(TT^ r$ 
Trarpl, Kal ava7i? rpels ovaias elvai, 
fjilav fJ.ev Trpor)yov/j.evr)i>, ras 5e Svo e | 
e /ceiVrjs. Sia TOUT eiK^rcas tbKa&fiQtvrcs 
rb TOIOVTO aotyiffna. TOV Sa^ocraTews, 61- 

elvai TOV XpiffTov bjj.oovffiov. 
OVK effri yap OVTWS o vibs Trpbs T\>V ira- 
Tepa, cbs eneivos et>6ei. ol Se TT\V Apeia- 
vr\v a tpeaiv toaQffJMTtffavTfS, Qe<apr l aa.v- 
Tes TT)V iravovpyiav TOV Tlav\ov, Kal 
AoyLffd/J-evoi /JLTJ OVTUS Kal eirl TU>V aaca- 
ju.ara>z/, /cal /j.d\iaTa eirl &eov Tb opoov- 
o~iov ar)/j.aivfo~6ai, yivaxrKovTes T ^ 
KTifffj.a, aAA. e TTJS ovcrias ytwiffux, 
eivai TOI/ \6yov, Kal TTJV ovfflav TOV Tra- 
Tpbs apx^v, Kal pifav, Kal Tn]y7]v eivai TOV 
vlov- Kal avToa\7]drjs O^OI^TTJS 1\v TOV 
yevvr,(ravTOS, oi>x &s eTepo(pvr]S, wo~irep 
Tj/u.e is eo~/j.ev, -)((api^6p.ev6s eo~Ti ToviraTpbs, 
aAA cbs e| avTov vlbs ofiiaipeTos virap- 
X*i, us eo-Ti Tb aTravya<T/j.a Trpbs Tb (peas 
8e Kal Ta irepl kiovvviov irapa,- 

Councils of Antioch and Nice. 73 

for the words of one substance/ and especially 1 that saying BOOKII. 
of the Saviour, expressive of unity 2 , I and the Father are 10. 
one/ and, he that hath seen Me hath seen My Father also/ HOMOOU- 
on these grounds they also, with good reason, were led to SI -, 
declare 3 that the Son is of one substance. " He then after , > , 

irpo TOV- 

afew words goes on to say; "For since the Samosatene held v impri- 
that the Son was not before Mary, but received from her the a U n itri . 
beginning of His being, on this account the assembled bishops cem, ^ 
condemned the man as a heretic and deposed him ; but touch- r^^Jcti 
ing the Godhead of the Son, writing in simple fashion, they suntutdi- 
did not busy themselves about the exact meaning of the ex- ce 
pression of one substance/ but, as they apprehended 4 the 4 <?6iA.^- 
One substance/ so did they speak of it ; for they were only * a<n * 
intent on overthrowing what the Samosatene had devised, 
and on setting forth that the Son was before all things, 
and that He did not become God from being man, but being 
God, He put on the form of a servant; and being the Word, 
He became flesh, as St. John said. And thus was the blas 
phemy of Paul dealt with. But when the party of Euse- 
bius and Arius taught that the Son was indeed before all 
time, yet that He was made, and was one of the creatures ; 
and as to the expression, ( Of God/ did not believe it in the 
sense that He was the true Son of the Father, but affirmed 
that to be of God held good of Him in the same sense as 
of the creatures; and, as to the oneness of likeness of the 
Son to the Father, did not confess that it is in respect of es 
sence 5 or nature, that the Son is like the Father, but is on 
account of the agreement of doctrines and of teaching; nay 

8 ovvias 

$*iy/J.aTa, TT]V irriy^v, KOI r)]v Trepl TOV irpb iravrw eTi/at T*bv uttV, Kal on OVK 

6/Aoovffiov airoXoyiav irpb Se TOUTCOZ/ rrjv e avOpwiruv yeyove et>s, ctAAa zbs &i/, 

TOV ScoTTjpos evoeifiri (pwf)v eyw KOI eVeSucraro 8ov\ov /uLop^v Kal \6yos &v, 

6 TraTrip ev efffjitv KOI, 6 tcapaK&s f/ne, yeyove crdp, us e?7rez/ Icoai/^Tjs* Kal OVTU 

ewpa/ce rbv Trarepa TOVTOV ei/e/cei/ ei/co- fj.V Kara. TTJS /3\a<r(p-r)/J,{as TIav\ov ire- 

Tcas elp7]Ka,fri Kal avjoi OJJ.OOV(TIOV Tbv v ibv irpaKTai. eireiS^] Se ot irepl JLva efiioi /cat 

. . . 67retSr; yap 6 2a/ioa"aT6us ((ppovti "Aptiov, Trpb xpdvcai/ /u.ev e?z/at rbv vibv 

/j. h eli/at Trpo Mapias rbv vibv, aAA aTr sXsyov, 7T67rotr)(r0at /xej/roi, Kal zva. T&V 

a.\jrr\s apx h 1 eVx?jKeVai TOV flvai, TOVTOV KTiff/j.a.Tow avT^bv eSi Sacr/cop, al rb, e/c 

ei/eitei/ ol rare o~vve\Q6vTs, K.aQil\ov /uev TOV &eov, ovx &s v ibv ZK naTpbs yvff~ 

avTbv Kal aiptTiKov airztprivai Trtpl Se TTJS o~iov, eirio~Tvov, aA.A cos ra /CTiV^uara, 

TOU vlov 0eoT7jTos aTT\ovo~Tfpov ypdtpov- OUTGO Kal ETT avTov rb e/c TOV eov eTi/at 

res, ov KaTeyevovTO irtpl T^V TOV 6/j.o- SiafiepaiovvTO, T-f)VT 6fj.oi(ao-fCDS kv6Tt]TO. 

OVQ- LOV a/cpi)8eiaf, aAA OVTCOS ws e|eiA7j- TOV vlov irpbs Tbv iraTfpa, OVK ^\eyov 

<pa(Ti TTpl TOV 6fJ.oovrriov etprj/caoT TI)V /cara TTJI/ ovo- iav, ottSe /cara TT]V (f>vo-ii/, 

yap tlxov Tracraf, OTrep eVei/J- cos ^(TTIV vibs Q/J.OIOS iraTpl, aAAa 8ia TTJV 

6 Sa^ocrareus, dfeAer^, Kal Setai, ffvptyuviav TWV Soyu.drwi Kal TT)S 5tSa- 



2 Aeu/core- 
poi> eypa- 

3 76VTJTO. 


5 de prseco 
nio F. N. 

74 Importance of adhering to the term " Of one Substance." 

and also severed off, and made entirely alien the substance of 
the Son from the Father, devising for Him another origin of 
being, and bringing Him down to the number of the crea 
tures : on this account the bishops who assembled at Nice, 
having perceived the craftiness of those who held this opinion, 
and having brought together 1 the sense out of the Scrip 
tures, used the phrase of one substance to express it more 
clearly 2 , in order that by this the truth and genuineness of 
His Sonship might be known, and that created beings 3 might 
have nothing in common with Him. For the precision of 
this term both detects their hypocrisy, if they use the formula 
f of God/ and also excludes all their plausible arguments, 
whereby they seduce 4 the simple-minded. At any rate, they 
are able to put a sophistical construction upon, and to change 
the meaning of all other words as they please ; this phrase 
only, as detecting their heresy, they dread ; which very phrase 
the fathers set down as a bulwark against all their impious 
speculations." Thus far the great Athanasius. 

11. He is, moreover, supported in his views by the great 
Basil, in his three hundredth Epistle ; where, having spoken 
- of the publication 5 of the Nicene Creed, he subjoins the fol 
lowing words q ; " Of this the other portions indeed are alto 
gether incapable of being assailed by calumny; but the 
word b^oovo-ios, having been used in a wrong sense by 
some, there are persons who have not yet accepted it. 
These one might with justice blame, and yet again, on 
second thoughts, they might be deemed excusable; for, al 
though a refusal to follow the fathers and to consider the 
word adopted by them, as of more authority than one s own 

o~Ka\ias, aAAa yap Kal a-rreo xowfa 1 Ka ovo~i rovs aKepaiovs, e /caAAet. irdvra 
airej-evovvro TrcwreAcis rfy ovtriai rov 
vlov a-rrb rov Trarpbs, erepav o.pxW 
avrif rov elvai eirivoovvres, Kal els ra 
Krlo-fj.ara Kara<pepovres avr6v rovrov 
Xapiv ol eV Ni/catct GvveXQovres, Oecapf)- 
o~afres rriv -navovpyiav ruiv OVTU <ppo- 
vovvrcov, Kal ffvvdyayovres e/c rcav ypa- 
<pcav rr\v Sidvotav, \evKorepov ypdtyovres, 
elpr]Kao~i rb dfjioovaiov iva Kal rb 71/77- 
aiov aXriQfas e/c rovrov yvwadfj rov vlov, 
Kal /U778ej/ Koivbv exy npbs rovrov ra ye- 
vrjrd 77 yap rrjs Ae |ecos ravrys aKpifteia, 
rT]v re viroKpiffiv avrcai- , ear \4ywFl rb 
e /c rov Qeov p-rjrbv, 5zeAe 7x*i- Kal irdaas 
ras iridav6rr]ras, kv ats 

eTi , us QfXovffi, ravrriv ^6vr]v r^v \4- 
|tj/, els 8ie\fyxvv ai avroov rriv atpfffiv, 
ol Trare pes, wcnrep eirtrei- 
Kara irda"r]S acre/Sous eirivoias av~ 
TCOJ/, sypafyov. Athan., torn. i. pp. 919, 
920. edit. Paris. 1627. [ 45. vol. i. p. 

1 ov ra fjikv &\Xa iravrd.ira<rtv eo~rlv 
ao~vKO(pdvr r)Ta i rfyv 8e rov o/moovaiou 
(fxavrjv, /ca/cws irapd nvcav eK\t]^)Q^LO-avy 
etcri rives ol /urjTrw 7rapa5f|a/xej/oi. ovs 
Kal yue /x^atT &v ris SiKaiws, Kal TraXiv 
/xeV rot o~vyyvu>/j.rjs avrovs d|twcreiej/. 
rb p.ti> yap irarpdo-i fJ.rj UKoXovQelv, Kal 

Si. Basil on the prejudice against the phrase. 75 

opinion, be deserving of blame, as fraught with wilfulness ; 
still on the other hand, the suspecting it, in consequence of 
its having had an ill name given it 1 by others, seems in some HOMOOU 
measure to exonerate them from that blame. For, in truth, S 
they who were assembled in the matter of Paul of Samosata, 
did give an ill name 2 to this word, as not conveying a good 2 Ste 
meaning 3 ; for they said that the term opoovvios, <of one * O fa 
substance/ suggests the idea of a substance and the things ^ ov - 
which are formed from it; so as that the substance being 
divided into parts, gives the appellation of one substance ; 
to the things into which it is divided. And this notion 
has some force r in the case of metal, and the pieces of 
money made from it; but in the instance of God the 
Father and God the Son, there is not contemplated any 
substance elder than or overlying 4 both; for to think or 
assert this were something beyond impiety." You per- 
ceive that in these words Basil expressly testifies, that 
the word opoovaios was rejected by the fathers of Antioch 
only so far as it seemed to denote a certain divine sub- 33 
stance anterior to the Father and the Son, which was sub 
sequently divided into the Father and the Son. Now it 
is most clear, that neither Paul of Samosata nor Sabellius 
confessed the doctrine "of one substance" in this sense. 
It therefore follows, that the assertion of Athanasius is 
quite true, that Paul framed an argument for impugning 
the divinity of Christ out of the word o^oovaios, which he 
was aware was in use among Catholics, (and possibly so ex- [92] 
plained by some of them, as to give occasion to its being 
spoken ill of,) and that the fathers, accordingly, determined 
on the suppression of it altogether. 

12. And this view of the case receives no little confirma 
tion from the history of the Nicene council. It is, I mean, 

TT?I/ e/ceiVwi/ (/>a>i/V Kvpiwrepav rt0<r0ai irpocr-nyopiav TO?S els a Strjpeer]. TOVTO 5e 

rrjs tavrwv jvcv^s, *yK\T]/u.aTos a^iov, eirl xA/cou p.\v Kal rfav ait avTov VO/J.L~ 

us avOaSelas ye^ov rb Se TrctAt*/ v(p ere- ar^dr^v ex ei nva. \6yov rb Siav6-rjfj.a- 

pw 5ta/3A7?0er0-ai/ avrrii/ viroinov e.\ii/, Vi 8e Qtov irarpbs, Kal eot) vlov, ova 

rovro irws SoKf i Tov e 7/cA^aTos O.VTOVS ovaia irpeo-/8yTepa oiS yTrep/cet^ei/Tj d^ct- 

fierpicas ^\evOepovv. Kal yap T$ QVTI ol fyolv 0ea>pemu aae&eias yap eVe/cetm 

M riauAw T^ ^afj.offaTfi avveXQovTts TOVTO Kal vor^ai Kal tpeey^ao-eat.Op. 

Ste^aAoi/ r^ Ae|iz/, us OVK ei/V^ot/. Basilii, torn. iii. p. 292. [Ep. Hi. 1. 

(f>a(rav yap e /ceii/ot, T^V TOV dfAoovaiov p. 145.] 

Qwvrjv Trapio-Tai/ ivvoiav ovcrias re /cat r Hoc quidem verissimutn est, &c., 

TO)J/ air OUT?}?, &<rre icaTa/j.epurOe io-ai is the Latin translation. 
TT\V ovolai> napexfiv TOV 6/j.oovaiov Trjv 

76 Confirmed by Eusebius account of the discussions at Nice, 

altogether probable, that the word ofjuoovaio^ was rejected 
by the fathers of Antioch for the very same reason, for 
which it was also disliked by certain catholic bishops at the 
council of Nice, that is to say, at first, before the other 
bishops and Constantine himself explained the word more 
distinctly. Now what was that reason? Was it because 
the word in question favoured the opinions of the Samo- 
satene or Sabellius ; or that those two heretics had em 
ployed it in explaining their heresy? Nothing is further 
from the truth. The actual reason was, because, on the 
contrary, the word appeared to some to imply that partition 
of the divine essence, which I just now mentioned ; this is 
expressly declared by Eusebius Pamphili, in his letter to 
his diocese of Csesarea, respecting the Nicene council, in the 
following words 8 ; "After they had dictated this formula," (i.e. 
the formula of faith now called the Nicene Creed,) " we did 
not pass over without examination their expressions, of the 
substance of the Father/ and f of one substance with the 
Father/ In consequence many questions and answers arose 
on these points, arid the meaning of the terms was tested by 
discussion; and in particular it was admitted by them, that the 
expression of the substance/ was intended to signify that 
the Son is indeed of the Father, but yet does not exist as a 
part of the Father. And as to these points it seemed to us also 
[93] right to assent to the meaning." Previously, in the same let 
ter, Eusebius had said that Constantine himself satisfied some 
of the bishops who raised a question about the expression, " of 
one substance," by these words 1 ; that "he did not use the 
words of one substance with reference to what takes place 
i Kara i a in the case of bodies ! , nor yet that the Son subsisted 2 , either 
" v ST ^7 way of 3 division or any kind of abscission from the Father ; 
inasmuch as it was not possible that the immaterial, intel- 

cara. . Ka i g^ Ta irr?]S TTJS ypa^rjs VTT av- 0e<r0cu Trj Siavoia [TTJS eucr/3oDs 8t 

TUV vTrayopevOeio-ns, oVcos efy>7jTCU carrots Aias, /c.r.A.] Apud Socrat. Eccl. Idist. 

TO e /c TT/S ovo-ias TOV TlaTpbs, Kal TO T< i. 8. [p. 24.] 

UaTpl ofj-oovaiov, OVK ctJ/e|eVacrTov au- OTI V.TI KaTa TO. T&V o-caudrwv^ Trddrj 

TO?S KaTa\i/j.irdvo/j.ev. firepfaT^ffeis TOL- Ae ^ot TO 6/J.oovffiov, ovTe ovv KaTa Siai- 

yapovv Kal ctTro/cpiVets fVTevOev aveKi- peffiv, OVTC KaTa TLVO. airoTO^v e /c TOU 

VOVVTO, tfiaadvi^ev re 6 Ao^os TT)V 8ta- UaTpbs VTroo-Trjvai. nr)T yap 8vvao-6at 

voiavTuv e/ p^jUeVcoi/* Kal Sfy Kal TO e /c TTJS TT/f av\ov, Kal voepai/, Kal aawfJ-aTov <f>v- 

ovnias w/J.o\6yr]TO irpbs avTwv SrjAcoTtKOf ffiv (Tco/xaTi/coV TI trdOos ixpiaTaadai 0et- 

tivairov e /c fjCtv TOV iraTpbs tlvai,ov /J.TJV ois 8e Kal diropp^TOLS pTjuatrt 

ws fj.epos virdpxeiv TOV TlaTpos. TavTa 8e TO TotaCTO voe"iv. [Ibid.J 

as to the words " Of one Substance. 3 Views of Sabellius. 77 

lectual, and incorporeal nature should be the subject of any BOOK n. 
corporeal affection; but of divine and mysterious terms it A /2. * 
is fit that we conceive in like manner/ [i. e. in divine and HOMOOU- 
mysterious thoughts.] Lastly, before the time of Paul of SION> 
Samosata, Sabellius also had himself denied the genera 
tion of the Son, into a distinct Person, of God the Father 
Himself, i. e. His being " of one substance," for the same 
reason, namely, that there would thence follow a division, 
and a cutting asunder, as it were, of the Divine Substance ; 
as Alexander informs us, not obscurely, in a letter to his 
namesake, the bishop of Constantinople, given in Theodo- 
ret; where he says that the Son u "was begotten, not out 
of what is not \ but of the Father who Is ; not after the * & 
likeness of [material] bodies, by cuttings off, or by stream 
ings off, which imply division, as Sabellius fancies." These 
words of Alexander admit plainly of a twofold meaning. 
Either, first, that Sabellius himself supposed that the Son 
was begotten of God the Father, after the manner of [ma 
terial] bodies, by a cutting into or partition of the Father s 
substance ; or secondly, that that heretic thought that such 
a partition of the Father s substance necessarily resulted 
from the view of the Catholics, who taught that the Son 
was so begotten of the very substance of the Father as to be 
a distinct Person 2 from the Father, and that on that account 2 hyposta- 
he rejected that catholic doctrine. The former of these S1 
senses is altogether absurd, since it is known to every one 
that Sabellius taught that God is one Person only 3 ; and that 
he recognised no real distinction of Persons in the Divine 
Essence, much less a partition thereof. It remains, then, 
that we must certainly take the words in the other sense. 
And indeed the earliest forerunners of Sabellius, whose 
heresy is stated and refuted by Justin Martyr, (in his Dia 
logue with Trypho,) opposed a distinction of Persons in the 
Godhead by the same argument, as we shall afterwards shew*, 
where we treat of the doctrine of Justin. Nay, it is certain 
that all the heretics who have ever denied a distinct sub 
sistence of the Son of God in the Divine Essence, (whether 

OVK e/c rov ft)} ftvros, Sa/SeAAujij So/ceT. Eccl. Hist. i. 4. p. 

oA\ eic TOV ovros Harpbs, ov Kara TO.S 17. edit. Valesii. [p. 18.] 
TWV ff(f}/j.aT(i}v 6fj.oi6Tr]ras, rats TO/J.OIS fy * See chap. iv. sect. 4. of this Book. 
TCUS K Siaipeffeoov airoppoiais, So 

78 Bp. Bull s opinion as to the true way of reconciling the 

ON THE they were Sabellians, followers of the Samosatene, or, lastly, 
Arians,) have invariably placed the chief support of their 

LITY OF cause on this very sophism. And I have no doubt that the 


~~ Nicene fathers wished to counteract this wrong conception 
of the doctrine of the "con substantiality" of the Son, when 
(after saying that the Son is "begotten of the substance of 
the Father") they subjoined immediately, " God of God, light 
34 of light." For by these words they signify that the Son of 
God is so begotten of God the Father, God of God, as light 
[95] is kindled of another light ; not by a partition or diminution 
of the Father s essence, but by a simple communication, such 
as (if any illustration of so great a mystery may be derived 
from things material) is the communication of light from 
another light, without any division or diminution of it. 

13. And thus after carefully weighing every thing, we are 
led to the decided opinion, that the following is the most sim- 
1 fvavrio- pie way of reconciling this apparent contradiction * between 
<t>aveias " -the councils of Antioch and Nice. The Catholics before the 
time of Paul of Samosata, and the council convened at An 
tioch against him, were accustomed to say, in discoursing of 
the Godhead of the Father and the Son, that the Son is " of 
one substance" with the Father ; as is abundantly proved by 
the testimonies of the ancient authors prior to the council of 
Antioch, which we have alleged before. Paul, however, in 
striving by every means to overthrow the received doctrine 
of the divinity of the Son, employed a sophistical argument, 
derived from a wrong understanding of the meaning of the 
expression " of one substance :" as thus : If the Son be of one 
substance with the Father, as you (Catholics) say, it will fol 
low, that the Divine Substance is, as it were, severed into 
two parts, whereof one constitutes the Father, and the other 
the Son ; and thus that there existed a certain Divine Sub 
stance, anterior to the Father and the Son, which afterwards 
was distributed into those two. The fathers of the council 
of Antioch with good reason abhorred this interpretation of 
the word ; and therefore, not caring much about words in 
a question of such moment, they were content to suppress 
the term itself in silence, in order to cut off all occasion 
for the cavils of the heretics, provided only that the thing 
was agreed on, i. e. the true divinity of the Son. When, 

apparent opposition of the two Synods (Antioch and Nice.) 79 

however, the Arians afterwards denied the thing itself, which BOOK n. 
is really represented in the word, that is to say, the true 12,13". 
divinity of the Son, and adduced (as is probable) the de- HOMOOU- 
finition of the fathers of Antioch to screen their heresy, the SION- 
bishops assembled at Nice with good reason formally re 
called (as from exile 1 ), and inserted in their Creed, this most 1 quasi 
fitting expression, which, as they were aware, had been re- ^ 1] 
ceived and approved by holy fathers prior to the council of 
Antioch, and which Catholics had then had taken from them, 
simply on account of the absurd cavils of the impious Sa- 
mosatene; such an explanation being added in the Creed 
itself, as no one but an heretic could reject. This will 
be sufficient before fair judges to vindicate the venerable 
fathers of Nice for adding the word O/JLOOUCTIO? to their Creed ; 
an additional reason, however, is given by Athanasius, in 
the fore-cited passage, and that with great truth ; to the 
effect that the most holy fathers were by a kind of neces 
sity, driven to place that word in their confession of faith, 
(although it nowhere occurs in the Scriptures, and even 
had, on somewhat slight grounds, been rejected by some of 
their predecessors,) driven that is to say, by reason of the 
"unprincipled cunning 2 " of the Arians, such as can hardly 2 rV ira- 
be believed, and such as all good men must simply detest, or vov w iav - 
(to use another expression of Athanasius y ) "the wickedness 3 3 
and evil artifice of their impiety." For those eminent mas- 
ters of pretence and dissimulation did not reject any one form 


of speech, which the Catholics had adopted and used, either out 
of Scripture or from tradition, with the sole exception of the 
word ojjboovaios ; as being a word of which the precision and 
exactness precluded all attempt at equivocation. When they 
were asked whether they acknowledged that the Son was 
begotten of the Father Himself 4 ? they used to assent, under- 4 ex ipso 
standing, as is plain, the Son to be of God in such sense as 
all creatures are of God, that is, have the beginning of their 
existence from Him. When the Catholics enquired of them 
whether they confessed that the Son of God was God, they 
forthwith answered, Most certainly. Nay more, they used of 5 ltro 
their own accord openly to declare 5 that the Son of God is bant/ C 
true God 6 . But in what sense? Forsooth being made true 

t y [Epist. ad Afric. 7. vol. i. p. 93.] 

80 Confirmed by statements of Athanasius and Ambrose. 


1 Sia rov 


[God], He is true [God] ; that is, He is true God who 
was truly made God z . Lastly, when they were charged by 
the Catholics with asserting that the Son of God is a creature, 
they would repel the charge not without some indignation : 
with the secret reservation of its being in this sense, that the 
Son of God is not a creature, as all other creatures are ; they 
being created by God mediately through the Word l , not im 
mediately, as the Word Himself. The word o^oovaios, " of 
one substance," was the only expression which they could not 
in any way reconcile with their heresy. Read by all means 
what Athanasius has written on this subject, in his letter to 
the African bishops, given by Theodoret, (Eccl. Hist. i. 8 ;) 
where this is especially to be observed, that Athanasius asserts 
that the Nicene fathers had designed to construct the con 
fession of their faith from passages of Scripture exclusively ; 
and that they would have carried this into effect, had they 
not been diverted from their purpose by the impious and 
abominable cunning of the Arians in perverting and wrest 
ing the words of the sacred oracles, of which they had full 
proof before their eyes. As to the observation of Atha 
nasius, that the expression o/juoovaios, " of one substance," 
was the one word upon which the Arians could not put any 
false colour, it is remarkably confirmed by Ambrose, (in his 
treatise On the Divinity of the Son, c. 4,) in these words a : 
" In short, even now they might (so far as the word is con 
cerned) use the phrase opoovonos, as they have all others 
also, if they knew how to pervert it to another meaning by 
putting a distorted sense on it ; but perceiving themselves to 
be shut up by this word, they wished that no mention at all 
should be made of it [in the Creed."] And, in fact, the com 
plete truth of this declaration of Athanasius and Ambrose is 
abundantly attested by the various and manifold confessions 
of the Arians, (as they are recorded by Athanasius himself in 
his treatise On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, and by 
Hilary in his frork On the Councils against the Arians, and 

telligentiam scaevo sensu perverterent. 
Sed cum viderent, se in hoc verbo con- 
cludi, nullam omnino hujus mentionem 
fieri voluerunt. [Several critics deny 
that this work is by Ambrose. Vol. ii. 
Append., p. 351. B.] 

i. e. Verus est Deus, qui vere factus est 

8 Denique et nunc possent 6/j.oov<nov, 
sicut et csetera, verbo tenus nominare, 
si haberent quomodo illud ad aliam in- 

The Nicene Bps. not ignorant of the decision at Antioch. 81 

by other writers ;) inasmuch as in these confessions the word BOOK n. 
ofjboovcnoS) " of one substance," is uniformly omitted, although "3^4* 
well-nigh all the other statements ! of the Catholics concern- HOMOOU- 
iner the Son of God are found in them. So that the Arian fana- SION - 


tics, in burning with such excessive fury against that word, . L - 1 . 

c x prsecoma. 

seem to me to act like mad dogs, that snarl at the iron chains 
by which they are confined, and attempt in vain to break 
them with their teeth. 

14. For the rest ; we are by no means to listen to Stephen 
Curcellseus b , w r ho could affirm without ablush, that "the in 
sertion of the word o^oovaios into the confession of faith by 
the Nicene bishops, as a watchword of orthodoxy, after it had 
been excluded from it as heretical by the council of Antioch 
sixty years before, happened through an oversight, in that the 
bishops who met at Nice had heard nothing of the decree of 
Antioch ; and that afterwards when it came to their know 
ledge, after the council was dissolved, it was no longer open 2 2 integrum. 
to them to make any alteration." For what man that is in 
his senses, and (to use an expression of Curcellseus ) that 
has not been possessed by a spirit of dizziness, would think 
it likely, that out of three hundred and eighteen bishops, 
of whom some (as we have before seen from Eusebius) 
were remarkable for learning, and others also venerable from 
their advanced age, there should not be one who knew what 
had been decreed in a very celebrated council, of which the 
remembrance was yet fresh. But even supposing we were 
to allow as a concession to Curcellseus, that all the rest of the 
prelates were so ignorant of the history of the Church, it was 
at any rate quite impossible that Eusebius, bishop of Cse- 
sarea, should have been unacquainted with this fact ; seeing 
that he was a man, beyond all controversy, most thoroughly 
acquainted with ecclesiastical matters. What is to be said 
to the fact that Athanasius, who, as it has been said before, 
was himself present and taking a part in the Nicene council, 
expressly testifies, in the passage above quoted, that the 
fathers assembled at Nice thoroughly understood the craft [99] 
of Paul 3 , that is, of Paul of Samosata, in procuring by his 3 
sophistry, among the bishops at Antioch, the throwing aside 
of a most apt expression, which had been of old in use among 

b Quatern. Dissertat., Dissert, i. p. 138. [ 71. p. 852. Op., ed. 1675.] 

82 The assertion) that the word was derived from heretics, 

ON THE the Catholic doctors ; and that, in consequence, they had re- 
81* A~ called it again into the use of the Church. Nothing could 
LITY OF have been, said more express than this against the fabrica- 


l - tion of Curcellseus. 

turn!" 6 15. But before we bring to a close our enquiry respecting 

the word " of one substance," we must once more briefly meet 
a statement of Sandius, who in the first book a of his " Ecclesi- 
2 Historic astical History laid open 2 ," maintains, that the word OJAOOV- 
Ecdesias- ^^ wag first fabricated ty heretics, that is to say, by the 
enucleatae. Valentinians and other Gnostics; from whom the phrase was 
afterwards taken up by Montanus, Theodotus, Sabellius, 
Paul of Samosata, and the Manichees ; and alleges that this 
is witnessed to by Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, and 
others. I ask him what his meaning is, when he says 
that this word was first fabricated by the Valentinians and 
other Gnostics. Does he mean this, that the Gnostics were 
the first to devise the Greek word, and to bring it into use ? 
I suppose he was not so utterly foolish as this. At any rate, 
as has been already shewn, the heathen writers among the 
Greeks used the very same word. Or did he mean that the 
Gnostics used that word respecting some of their ^Eons ? We 
allow that they did ; and no more than this is attested by 
Irenseus and other Catholic writers b . But what of that ? 
Surely these same Gnostics also applied to their JEons the 
words \6yos, crwrrip, Trapdrc^ros, and very many others 
which were in use among the Catholics in speaking of the 
divine Persons. Are we then, on this account, to say, that the 
Gnostics were the first to invent them ? and are the words, 
on this ground, to be excluded from use in the Church? 
[100] Certainly not. The remark of Tertullian is to the purpose, 
(against Praxeas, chap. 8 C ;) " The truth does not refrain from 
the use of a word, because heresy also uses it. Nay, heresy 
has rather borrowed it from the truth, to frame it into her own 
counterfeit." Lastly, was this what he meant, that the Gnos 
tics were the first to teach that the Word, or Son of God, was 

a p. 122. [p. 504. The Latin is given in full ; 

b See above, 2. the words in brackets were omitted by 

c Non ideo, inquit, non utatur et veri- Bp. Bull, and " utatur altered to " uti- 

tas vocabulo [isto (sc. irpoj8o\V) et re tur ;" the words "utitur, imo haeresis" 

et censu ejus,] quia et haeresis [utitur, have been restored in the translation, to 

imo haeresis] potius ex veritate accepit, complete the sense.] 
quod ad mendacium suum strueret. 

refuted ; Montanus orthodox on this doctrine. 83 

of one substance with God the Father ? He must surely BOOK n. 
allow, either that this was his meaning in the passage I have "4*15. 
cited, or that his observations were not at all to the point. HOMOOU^ 
Now, this is entirely false; neither Irenseus, nor any one of SION< 
the ancient writers makes such a statement. On the contrary, 
it is most certain that the Gnostics (I mean, the Cerinthians, 
Valentinians, &c.) entirely denied the consubstantiality of 
the Logos, i. e. of the Word, or Son of God ; and were on 
that account condemned by the Catholics who wrote against 
them, as guilty of heresy. Indeed they separated the Logos 
so far from the essence of the most high God, the Father 
of all, that that .^Eon was totally ignorant of that his first 
parent; as we learn from Irenseus, Tertullian, and others. 
So they also denied the coeternity l of the Word, affirming l ?*> o-werf- 
that Silence preceded the Word ; and that, consequently, 
there was a time when the Word did not exist at all ; and 
from this cause also they were vehemently opposed by the 
most ancient Catholic doctors of the Church. In a word, the 
heresy, which was afterwards called the Arian, had the Gnos 
tics for its first authors and parents ; as we shall most clearly 
prove in a subsequent portion of the work d . Of Sabellius 
and Paul of Samosata, I have already said what may suffice. 
With regard to Montanus, by what argument will Sandius 
prove that he was heretical on the article of the most holy 
Trinity? His authorities are Socrates, i. 23, and Sozomen, 
ii. 18. They associate Montanus with Sabellius, as thinking 
alike on the doctrine of the most holy Trinity. But let us [101] 
hear what the excellent Valesius 6 has observed on the pas 
sage in Socrates; " It is not clear," he says, "why Socrates 
joins Montanus and Sabellius together; for we have the 36 
testimony of Epiphanius, (On the Heresy of the Montanists,) 
and of Theodoret, (in his third book On the Fables of the 
Heretics,) that Montanus himself made no innovation in 
the doctrine of the Trinity, but adhered to the faith of the 
Catholic Church; some of his followers, however, did away 
with the distinction of persons, with Sabellius, as Theo 
doret in the passage cited above expressly writes f , Certain 

d See book iii. 1. 15, 16. fficasripv hffavTO,Tbi>avTbveTvai\e yovTs 

e Notes on Socrat., p. 14. [p. 57.] /cat Trare pa, /cat vlbv, Kal ayiov irvev^a. 

f rives Se avTuv rhs rpels viroa-rd- Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. iii. 2. vol. iv. 
o-fis TTJS flech-T/Tos 2a#eAAtV TropaTrArj- p. 227. 

n 9 

84 Various statements of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 

ON THE of them, almost in the same way as Sabellius, denied the 
A N NTIA- three Persons of the Godhead, alleging that the Father, the 
LITY OF s on ^ an( j the Holy Ghost are the same person 1 /" To the 

rr- observations of Valesius I will add this also ; Tertullian in his 

1 rbv avrbv , . . . , 

eT^at. treatise against Praxeas, (a work which was certainly written 
by him after he had become a Montanist,) most strenuously 

2 scilicet, assailed the heresy which Sabellius embraced ; for 2 Praxeas 

entertained the very same opinions as Sabellius afterwards 
[did.] It is, therefore, more than certain, that neither Mon- 
tanus himself, nor his earliest followers, entertained the same 
views as Sabellius on the doctrine of the Trinity. If San 
dius had understood this, he might easily have corrected his 
many mistakes in the first book of his Hist. Eccl. EnucL, in 
which he treats of Montanus and his heresy. But what, I 
ask, is the meaning of Sandius, in enumerating Theodotus 
among the upholders of the word " of one substance." Does 
he mean Theodotus the Tanner, who in the time of Pope 

3 $i\bv &v- Victor taught that Christ was a mere man 3 ? But what an- 
epuirov. c j en {- wr iter, nay what human being, before Sandius, main 
tained that Theodotus ever dreamt of the consubstantiality of 

[102] the Son ? Then, with respect to the Manichees, Augustine in 
deed states, (as Sandius afterwards quotes him, when he is 
treating of those heretics,) that they acknowledged the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be of a nature not unequal. 
Be it so. But what then ? Sandius may sooner draw water 
from a pumice-stone, than hammer out of these facts any 
thing to suit his purpose ! Meanwhile, it is no great merit 
in the Manichees to confess that the three Persons of the 
Godhead are of a nature not unequal ; for (according to San 
dius 7 own statement) they thought that angels also, and the 
souls of men had their existence of the divine substance. 
And thus far of the word opooixno!?, " of one substance." 
Let us now deal with the thing itself. 

16. We affirm that it was the concordant and uniform 
view of the Catholic doctors, who flourished in the first three 
centuries, that the Son of God is, in the aforesaid sense, of 
one substance with God the Father; that is, that He is 
not of any created or mutable essence, but of altogether the 
same divine and unchangeable nature with His Father ; and 

4 tradunt therefore is true God. The ancient writers, indeed, teach 4 

which all imply the doctrine of One Substance. 9 85 

this doctrine in many different ways. 1. They teach the doc- BOOK n. 
trine "of one substance," so often as they affirm that the g^^ iJ}. 
Son of God is put forth and begotten, not only by the Fa- HOMOOU- 
ther 1 , but of Him. For that is a most certain axiom. To f 10 * 

i Q Patre 
IK Seov yevvrjQev, eos eVrtS, "What is begotten ofsedexipso, 

God, is God." 2. They teach the same, so often as they Himself." 
declare that the Son is the true, genuine, proper, and na 
tural Son of God the Father. 3. The very same do they 
declare by the similes with which they are accustomed, as 
best they may, to illustrate the generation of the Son. 
They say that the Son is begotten of 2 the Father, as a 2 generari 
tree proceeds out of the root, a stream out of the foun- ex< 
tain, a ray out of the sun. But the root and the tree, the 
fountain and the stream, the light in the disc of the sun and 
that in the ray, are clearly of the same nature ; so are the 
Father and the Son of altogether the same substance. But 
you will find no simile, in which the fathers take more [103J 
delight, than in that of light out of light, as when fire is 
kindled of 3 fire, or the beam put forth 4 out of the sun. 3 ex. 
Hence the Nicene prelates in their creed inserted that ex- 4 t ^ r orrigi " 
pression c/xws- e/e (pcorbs, " Light of Light," in illustration of 
the article " of one substance/ 4. They most openly confirm 
the doctrine " of one substance," when (as they all do) they 
except the Son of God from the number of created beings, 
and expressly deny that He is a creature ; for there is nothing 
midway between God and a creature. 5. They affirm the 
same, so often as they ascribe to the Son of God attributes 
which belong to the true God only. 6. Lastly, they teach 
this very truth, so often as they explicitly pronounce the Son 
of God to be not only God, but true God also, God by na 
ture, one God with the Father. In most of the fathers all 
these arguments for the consubstantiality may be found; 
whilst most of them occur in all. But let us now hear them 
speak for themselves. 

g [Irenaeus, i. 8. 5. p. 41.] 

86 Testimony of St. Barnabas. 



ON THE i WILL begin with the apostolic writers. The author of the 

CONSUB- _, , n -r T ,1 

STANTIA- Epistle which bears the name of Barnabas, in the passages 

LITY OF which we have cited before h in proof of the pre-existence of 

~ the Son of God, remarkably declares His true Godhead also. 

For therein he calls the Son of God " Lord of the whole earth ;" 

and that antecedently (as they express it) to that dispensa- 

oecono- tion , which He vouchsafed to undertake for our salvation ; 

he says also, that the glory of Jesus is so great, that " through 

2 peripsum Him and for Him are all things 2 :" that is, by Him, as the effi- 
i>um Ptei: c i ent cause, all things are made, and to Him 3 , as their end, all. 

[101] things are referred; which certainly cannot, without blas- 

3 in ipsum. phemy, be said of any creature. To this may be added a 

remarkable passage in the sixth section of the same Epistle ; 
where he teaches that the Lord, who foreknew all things, 
for this reason said that He would take away from His peo 
ple their heart of stone, and would put into them a new 
heart of flesh ; " because i He was about to be manifested in 
the flesh, and to dwell in us ; for the habitation of our heart, 
my brethren, is a holy temple to the Lord;" where he is 
speaking expressly of the Lord, who manifested Himself in 
the flesh, or the nature of man, that is, of the Son of God ; 
and declares that He is the Lord, who hath His dwelling 
in the hearts of the saints, as in temples consecrated unto 
God. Now these expressions so clearly set forth the divine 
majesty and omnipresence of the Son, as to require no expla 
nation from me ; and there are several other passages of the 
like import, which you may read throughout the same Epistle. 
2. Hermas, a writer whose antiquity and authority we have 

h i. 2. 2. [p. 36.] a8eA<ot JJLOV, TGJ 

on eytieAAei/ eV ffapK\ QavcpovaDai, r)/j.(av TTJS KapSias, p. 222. [p. 19.] 
KO.I 4v hvuv KO.TOIKSIV. va.os yap ciytos, 

Testimonies from the Shepherd of Her mas. 87 

already k abundantly established, delivers most plainly the BOOK n. 
same doctrine. For besides teaching, in the ninth Simili^ A j P 2" 
tude, (as was shewn above,) that the Son of God was in HERMAS. 
being before any creature, and was present with His Fa 
ther, and that as His counsellor 1 , at the creation of all i o-^oy- 
things, (statements which, with all men of sound mind, ^ 5 
suffice to declare the true divinity of the Son ; for who 
can suppose that the counsellor of God is not Himself God ?) 
in the same Similitude also, a little after, he expressly attri 
butes to the Son of God the upholding of the whole world, 
and of all the creatures that are in the world, (a truly divine 
work,) and immensity, which in like manner belongs to [105] 
the true God alone. His words are ; " The name of the 
Son of God is great and immeasurable ; and the whole world 
is sustained by Him l ." And afterwards ; " Every creature 
of God is sustained by His Son ;" wherein also he most ex 
plicitly distinguishes the Son of God from every creature 
of God. Hermas also expressly denies that the Son of God 
is put in the place or condition of a servant. There is a proof 
of this in his third book, Simil. v., where upon Hernias en 
quiring m , " Why is the Son of God, in this similitude, put in 
the place of a servant ?" the Shepherd returns answer; " The 
Son of God is not put in the condition of a servant, but in 
great power and rule." Now the expressions, to be put in 
the condition of a servant," and " to be a creature," are equi 
valent ; forasmuch as every creature stands in the relation 
of a servant to God, the supreme Lord of all. And rightly 
doth the author of a treatise, entitled An Exposition of 
Faith, (e/cOea-is Trtcrrect)?,) ascribed to Justin, say"; "For if 
any thing is among the number of things existing, its na 
ture is either created or uncreated. Now that nature which 
is uncreate is sovereign and free from all necessity; whilst 

k See book i. 2. 3. [p. 38.] e3f n yap eVrtz/ eV TO?S otow, 4) 

1 Nomen Filii Dei magnum et im &KTKTTOS (pvffis ecrrlv, 1) KTKTT^. a\\ rj 

mensum est, et totus ab eo sustentatur fj.ev aKTiarros,Se(nroriKr] /cot Trao-rjs avdy- 

orbis. . . . Omnifi Dei creatura per /njs tXtvOcpa rj Se, SouAi/cfy Kal i>6fj.ois 

Filium ejus sustentatur. [ 14. p. Sea-rroTiKots erro/ieVi;. Kal -f) n*v /car 

e^ovcriav a fay /3ov\Tai, Kal iroiovcrct, Kal 

m Quare Filius Dei in similitudine Swa/xeV?; -rj Se T^V SiaKoviav p.6vi}v, V 

hac servili loco ponitur? respondet Trap avrris TTJS e6rr]Tos efXij^e, Kal Sv- 

Pastor: In servili conditione non po- va^vr], Kal Troiovva,. p. 374. [ 4. p. 

nitur Filius Dei, sed in magna potes- 422.] 
tate et imperio. [ 5, 6. p. 107.] 

88 The assertion that Hermas is speaking of a power 

ON THE the other is servile and subject to the laws of a master. 

BTANTIA- And the former, with full power, doeth, and can do, what- 

LITY OF ever it will ; the latter only can do, and only doeth, that service 

- which it hath received from the Godhead Itself." Whence 

the holy Apostle himself also, in his Epistle to the Philippians, 
ii. 6, 7, (which single passage, if rightly considered, is enough 
38 to refute all the heresies against the Person of our Lord 
[106] Jesus Christ,) opposes "the form of a servant" (popffiv Sov\ov) 
to " the form of God" (/jiop^rjv Oeov) : by the form of a ser 
vant understanding (not that condition of wretchedness, which 
the Lord endured for our salvation, when He was beaten with 
scourges, spitted upon, and at last nailed to the cross, for of 
that, as a further degree of humiliation, he afterwards in the 
same passage speaks distinctly; but) that very nature of 
man, in likeness of which Christ is said (in the words im 
mediately following, which are manifestly added by way of 

1 ^Iwrt- explanation ] ) to have been made : for of a truth every man, 
of what condition soever he be, nay, every creature, when com 
pared with God, holds altogether the relation of a servant. 

3. Petavius himself adduced this remarkable passage of 
Hermas, in support of the true Godhead of Christ; although 
the Jesuit is, in consequence, charged by the author of the 

8 sublestae Irenicum Irenicorum with a want of good faith 2 . It is thus he 
addresses him ; "But if it had been your wish, not to de 
ceive, but to inform others, you ought here, Petavius, to have 
added what power, and what dominion that was, of which the 
Shepherd spoke ; not, it is plain, of a power and a dominion 
equal to the Father s, but of a power delivered to Him by 
the Father after His death, and a dominion over His own 
people, whom in like manner the Father had given Him, 

3 doctores. and over whom Christ Himself placed teachers 3p . And on 
this account he says that Christ both is, and is introduced, 
not as a servant, but as the Lord of His people." But in this 

4 anonyme. instance, O nameless one 4 , the charge recoils on yourself; for 
had you not wished to deceive, rather than to inform others, 
you ought here to have added what is necessarily connected 

Irenic. Iren., p. 20. ligo. Quoniam, inquit, eis quos Filio 

p [The words of Hermas following suo tradidit, Filius ejus nuntios praepo- 

those last quoted are; Ei dixi, Quo- suit ad conservandos singulos. 6.] 

modo, inquam, domine ? Non intel- 

conferred on Christ by the Father, untrue. 89 

with the words which you have alleged, and thus presented BOOK n. 
to your reader the text of Hermas entire. The matter stands 2*3!" 
thus : in this fifth Similitude the Shepherd had represented HERMAS. 
Christ our Saviour under a twofold condition l , as Son of l 0-xeVis. 
God, and as servant of God. For this is his own explicit [107] 
interpretation of the parable of the Son and the servant q ; 
" The Son," he says, " is the Holy Spirit ; but the servant 
is the Son of God." For as is plain, the Son of God whom he 
calls the Holy Spirit, is one and the same as the Son of God 
whom he had in the similitude represented as a servant. 
By both he certainly means our Saviour, whom he desig 
nates both as Son of God, and as a servant ; but in a differ 
ent view in each case. He calls Christ the Son of God, be 
cause of that Holy Spirit, that is, the divine nature 2 , or the 2 T 
Word, (as was observed above 1 ",) which was united to the 
man Christ in one person, by a most intimate and ineffable 
connexion. On the other hand he introduces that same 
Christ as the servant of God, in respect of that body, (as the 
Shepherd soon after speaks,) or that human nature, which 
the Son of God put on, and in which in very deed He assumed 
the form of a servant. Nor is it unusual with our Shepherd, 
by reason of Chrises twofold nature, to attribute to Him, in 
the same similitude, a twofold condition also. In the ninth, 
for instance, he had represented Christ under the figure alike 
of an ancient rock, inasmuch as He is Son of God, being 
before all creatures with the Father ; and of a new gate, in 
asmuch as in these last days He the same [Person] became 
man, and appeared [on earth] ; as we have also shewn before. 
Hermas, however, not yet understanding this, and being un 
able to comprehend in what way He, who is the Son of God, 
is also the servant of God, asks this question of his Shepherd ; 
"Why is the Son of God in this similitude put in the place 
of a servant 8 ?" In answer to this question, the Shepherd does 
indeed say those words which the author of the Irenicum just 
now quoted, of all power being given to Christ by the Father, 
&c.; but this does not make up the full answer of the Shep- [108] 

i Filius autem, inquit, Spiritussanc- r Vid. i. 2. 5. [p. 46.] 

tus est : servus vero ille Filius Dei. s Quare Filius Dei in similitudine 
[ 5. p. 107. J hac servili loco ponitur ? [ 5. p. 107.] 


Hermas to be understood with reference 



8 in quo 
Deus. C 

in quo 



herd; since, shortly after, other statements are subjoined by 
hi m > which contain a more full and distinct solution of the 
question put to him, and which are not so much in accord- 
ance with the wish and the view of this anonymous author. 
The Shepherd, as is plain, again distinguishes between the 
Holy Spirit, or the divine nature 1 in Christ, and the body, or 
human nature of Christ ; and states in express terms that the 
condition of a servant, in which the Son of God had been 
represented in the similitude, is to be referred solely to the 
flesh, or that human nature. For, after he had said respect 
ing this Holy Spirit, that " It was first of all infused into the 
body, in which God would dwell 2 ;" he adds presently after- 
wards ; " This body, therefore, into which the Holy Spirit 
was brought, served that Spirit, walking in modesty, uprightly 
and purely, nor ever at all defiled that Spirit. Seeing, then, 
that the body had at all times been obedient to the Holy 
Spirit, and had laboured righteously and chastely with It, nor 
had given way at any time, that wearied body lived indeed 
the life of a servant, but being mightily approved together 
with that Holy Spirit was received by God*." In these words 
it is quite clear, that the Shepherd is speaking of the body, 
or the human nature of Christ ; and that it is of that body 
alone that he affirms that it lived the life of a servant ; and 
that after, and by reason of, that life of a servant finished on 
earth, being approved together with the Holy Spirit, or Word, 
in which it subsisted 3 , it was received by God, that is to say, 
was raised to the right hand of the Divine Majesty in the 
highest. Hence [it seems, that] the Shepherd had shadowed 
forth the exaltation of the man Christ in the similitude, by 
the figure of the servant whom the Lord of the farm, that 
is, God the Father, by reason of the good service which He 
had performed, willed to make fellow-heir with His own Son. 

1 Quiinfusus est omnium primus in 
corpora, in quo habitaret Deus, .... 
Hoc ergo corpus, in quod inductus est 
Spiritus Sanctus, servivit illi Spiritui, 
recte in modestia ambulans et caste, 
neque omnino maculavit Spi ritum il- 
lum. Cum igitur corpus illud paruisset 
omni tempore Spiritui Sancto, recte at- 
que caste laborasset cum eo, nee sue- 
cubuisset in omni tempore, fatigatum 

corpus illud serviliter conversatum est, 
sed fortiter cum Spiritu Sancto compro- 
batum, Deorecepturn est. An allusion 
is here evidently made to the words of 
Paul, &iicai60ri eV Tn/eu^art, "justified 
in the Spirit;" and ave\-f)$6-r) eV S6&, 
" received up into glory," 1 Tim. iii. ] 6. 
See a similar passage of Justin, ob- 
served on iii. 2. 2. 

to the two Natures in Christ. 91 

For by the servant he means the body, or human nature of BOOK n. 
Christ ; and by the Son, the divine nature in Christ, as we c A 3 P 4 * 
have more than once intimated to the reader. The servant, HERMAS. 
therefore, became fellow-heir with the Son, at the time when 
the body, or human nature of Christ, after His resurrection, 
was set on the right hand of God, and was made associate 
and partaker, as far as it was capable of it, of the same glory 
and honour which the Son of God (or the Word) possessed 
with His Father even before the foundation of this world. The 
same was the meaning of the author of the so-called Epistle 
of Barnabas, who was undoubtedly contemporary with Her 
nias, when, in the eleventh chapter, after citing the words 
of Christ by the prophet, " Jacob u is to be praised above all 1 l super 
the earth/ he after his manner thus interprets it v ; " By this p " 
He means the vessel of His Spirit," (that is, of His divinity,) 
which He was about to glorify." Any one who shall have 
carefully perused the fifth Similitude of Hernias, will at once 
perceive that I have here given the true meaning of the 
Shepherd. And from all these proofs it is now most clear, that 
according to the doctrine of the Shepherd, the Son of God, 
as Son of God and as God, in no wise hath, nor ever had, even 
in respect of God the Father, the relation of a servant ; and 
that in no other way, than on account of the dispensation of 
His incarnation 2 , which He voluntarily undertook, was He 2 incarna- 
at any time the servant of God : which is the very point we tionis ? is " 

1 J r pensatio- 

had to prove. But of a truth, in this case, the words with which nem. 
the author of the Irenicum* twitted Petavius may very fairly 
be turned against himself ; These and other statements of 
the same kind are made by our author concerning the Son; 
which are widely different from what thou, hiding thy name, 
representest unto us." 

4. I am ashamed and grieved to state what the author of 
the Irenicum and Sandius have adduced, in support of their [110] 
heresy, in opposition to these testimonies of Hermas so clear 
and express for the Catholic doctrine ; but, lest I should seem 
to shrink 3 from meeting them, I will notwithstanding bring 3 tergiver- 


^ [Bp. Bull s words are; Jacob lautla- it is not identical with the LXX ver- 

bilis super omnem terrain. The original sion.] 

is; Kol fy fi yri rov lait&ft eVcuj/oi^eVrj * TO $ TO xfy t T ^ fflcf g 05 T0 Uvev- 

irapa iravav TT?J> yr\v, and the passage f^aros avrov & Soafct. p. 235. [p. 38. J 

probably refers to Zeph.iii. 19; though * Iren. Irenic., p. 21. 

92 Hernias assertion, that there is One God, does not 

2 dum. 

3 nnpru- 
dentes et 

them forward. In the first place, then, they both y allege 
as an objection the words of the Shepherd in book ii., (which 
is especially entitled the Shepherd,) Mand. l z ; "Believe that 
there is one God, who [created and] constituted all things, 
and caused them to be, who is able to comprehend all things, 
and is not comprehended of any." But what the sophists 
would extract from these words in furtherance of their cause, 
I cannot even divine : unless indeed they imagine that it 
is impossible for any one, who acknowledges a Trinity of 
divine Persons of one substance 1 , to believe that there is 
one God. But if this is what they think, they are greatly 
deceived; seeing that at this day all Catholics believe both. 
And the primitive Catholic Church professed the same also in 
her rule of faith, as Tertullian testifies at the opening of 
his book against Praxeas, where he says a , " We believe in 
one only God indeed, but yet under this dispensation, 
which we call economy/ that there is of this one only 
God, the Son also, His Word, who proceeded from Him," 
&c. And a little after; "One is all, in that 2 all are of 
one, by unity, that is, of substance ; and nevertheless the 
mystery of the economy is guarded, which distributes the 
unity into a Trinity, placing in their order three [Persons,] 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The author of 
the Irenicum, however, and Sandius plainly appear to have 
entertained the same notions as those " unwise and simple 
men 3 ," whom Tertullian presently after mentions in the 
same place b , who, "forasmuch as the rule of faith itself 
transfers [them] from the many gods of the world, unto one 
only and true God, not understanding that He must be be- 

y Irenic., p. 19 ; Sand. Enucl. Hist. 
Eccl., p. 55. 

z Crede quonialn unus est Deus,qui 
omnia constituit et fecit, ut essent om- 
nia, omnium capax, et qui a nemine 
capitur. [p. 85. The Greek is ; Trpu- 
TOV iravrutv Tri(rrev<rov orl els effrlv 6 
ebs, 6 ra Trdvra Kricras /cat KaraprtVos 
Kal TTOi"f]cra.s eK rov ^ OVTOS els TO elvai 
ra TrdWa. Bp. Bull follows Irenaeus, 
who quotes the words of Hermas, iv. 
20, 2. p. 253. B.j 

a Nos unicum quidem Deum credi- 
mus, sub hac tamen dispensatione, 
quam olKovo/j.ia.v dicimus, ut unici Dei 
sit et Filius, Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso 

processerit, [per quem omnia facta sunt 
et sine quo factum est nihil.] .... 
("Quasi non sic quoque] unus sit [est 
Bull,] omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per 
suhstantiae scilicet unitatem : et nihil- 
ominus custodiatur olKovo^ias sacra- 
mentum, quse unitatem in Trinitatem 
disponit, tres dirigens, Patrem, [et] 
Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum. [2. p. 

b Quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a plu- 
rihus Diis sseculi ad unicum et verum 
Deum transfert, non intelligentes uni 
cum quidem, sed cum sua otKOVOfiltf 
esse credendum, expavescunt ad olito- 
vu^iav. Numerum et dispositionem 

exclude a Trinity of Persons. 93 

lieved to be indeed one only, but yet with His own [proper] BOOK n. 
economy 1 , are startled at that economy. They assume that 
number and mutual relation 2 in the Trinity is a division of 
the unity: whereas the unity, deriving the Trinity out of 
itself, is not destroyed, but rather ministered unto, by it." Yet [111] 
whatever these modern dogmatisers may think, it is at any 2 . dis P os i- 
rate clear and certain, that our Hernias, who wrote in the 
apostolic age, was not ignorant of that most sacred economjr. 
For, we may observe, his Shepherd did himself believe, and 
taught others to believe, that there is one God, in such sense 
as at the same time to confess, that the Father of all things 
hath His Son, who was in being with Him before all crea 
tures ; and who was also present with Him in the framing 
of all things as His counsellor and fellow-worker ; who, even 
as His Father, is infinite, and sustains the universe by His 
almighty word 3 ; who, lastly, in Himself and in His own na- 3 "the 
ture hath no way the relation of a servant to God the Father ; ^/ d of 
as has been shewn from the very words of Hermas himself, power." 
which have been already quoted. 

5. The passages, however, which the author of the Irenicum 
adduces besides out of Hermas, against the Catholics, are in 
deed astonishing c ; " What is to be said to the fact," says he, 
that it evidently appears from his (Hermas ) fifth Similitude, 
that he either acknowledged the Son of God as man only, or 
at least believed Him to be much inferior to the Father, nay 
and to the Holy Spirit. For in the passage which has been 
quoted he introduces the Son not only as the servant of the 
Father, but also as the servant of the Holy Ghost, and obe 
dient to Him. His words are d ; And on this account the body 
of Christ, that is, of the Son of God, into which the Holy Spirit 
had been infused, was subservient to this Spirit/" &c. And 
here I am myself well-nigh stupified at the stupidity of the 
heretic. For first, were we to grant him, that by the Holy 
Spirit, in this passage of Hermas, the third Person of the 
Godhead ought certainly to be understood, what will the un 
happy man gain thence in support of his impious and desperate [112] 

Trinitatis divisionem praesumunt uni- c Irenic., p. 21. 

tatis: quando uaitas ex semetipsa de- d Et propterea corpus Cliristi, seu 

rivans Trinitatem non destruatur ab Filii Dei, cui infusus erat Spiritus 

ilia, sed administretur. [p. 6.J Sanctus, huic Spiritui servivit, &c. 

91 Of the Human Nature in Christ being subservient 

ON THE cause ? Surely nothing whatever ! For can any one be found so 
- blind as not at once to see, that Hermas is there expressly 

LITY OF speaking only of the body, or human nature, of Christ ? And 
~TT what wonder is it, if this, being a creature, be said to be sub 
servient to the Holy Spirit, who is God? But, secondly, I 
have already at some length and most clearly proved, that 
Hermas, in this passage, under the designation of the Holy 
Spirit, understood the Word, or divine nature in Christ, 
which is most properly called the Son of God. This is so 
obvious from the tenour of the whole parable, that it is strange 
that Petavius himself did not perceive it. That very learned 
man was, I suppose, misled by the circumstance that Her 
mas, soon afterwards in the same passage, says that the Holy 
Spirit dwells in our bodies likewise. But in that place it 
must either be said, that the Shepherd abruptly passed to 
another signification of the Holy Spirit ; or it must be un 
derstood (as I should rather think) in the sense in which 
every true Christian is said to be a sacred dwelling-place 
and temple of the whole most holy Trinity. [It is] at any 
1 aclhseret. rate [true that] the Word, who is joined 1 to the man Christ 
Jesus "by a communion supreme and not to be surpassed," 
(aicpa /cal avv7rep{3\iJTa) Koivwviq,) as Origen somewhere 6 
expresses the hypostatic union, as He Is every where by 
His influence and power, so does He fix for Himself a place 
- and an habitation, by a peculiar mode of presence, in the 
hearts of the godly f . Hence Ignatius in his Epistle to the 
Ephesians B, speaking of the Son of God, exhorts the saints 
in this manner ; " Let us then do all things as having Him 
dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and that He 
may be within us, [who is] our God." And, above, Barnabas 
called our heart a habitation (/caroiK^r^pLov), and a temple 
(vaov) of the Son of God. Thus also Justin Martyr says h , 
that God the Father has firmly fixed within our hearts the 
[1131 holy and incomprehensible Word, whom He had sent down 
from heaven to men. And indeed even from this it is evi 
dent that those most ancient doctors of the Church believed 

8 [Contra Celsum, vi. 48. p. 670.] h [avrbs CITT ovpavwv TT\V a\-f]0tau Kal 

f See Apocalypse iii. 20, and John rbv \6yoi> rbv ayiov Kai a.Trepti>6r)TOv av- 

xiv. 23. (Add Ephes. iii. 17. Opwirois eviSpvcre, Kal e 7/caTe(mf]pie rats 

GRABE ) /capSiats a.vr(av. ] Epist. ad Diognet., 

[ 15. p. 15. Vid. infr., p. 114.] p. 493. [ 7. p. 237.] 


to the Spirit. Testimonies of Ignatius. 95 

the Son of God to be true God, and that in the very highest 

sense *. CHAP. n. 

fi e 

Of Hernias I shall say no more, after I have informed the 
reader, that even Petavius, who is in other cases, at least on i i ps i s si- 
this question, a most unfair critic of the fathers, expressly mum 
allows * that this Hermas " was never accused by any," that 
is by any ancient catholic writer, " of heresy or false doctrine, 
specially 2 concerning the Trinity :" which is indeed most true * maxime. 
and worthy of remark. As to what that modern and most 
trifling writer, Sandius, further objects to him, that he taught 
that " the Holy Spirit converses with man, not when He wills, 
but when God wills," any one will clearly see that it is utterly 
frivolous, who weighs carefully the actual words of Hermas 
on that subject; (book ii. Mand. 12 k .) For he will perceive 
that the words, " not when he wills," refer, not to the Holy 
Spirit Himself, but to the man to whom the Holy Spirit 

6. After Hermas we have next to speak of Ignatius. In IGNATIUS. 
his genuine Epistles, edited by Isaac Vossius 1 , (and these 
alone, I may once for all inform my reader, I shall employ 
in this work,) he throughout declares the true divinity of the 
Son of God in the clearest terms. His Epistle to the Smyr- 
neans begins with these words ; " I glorify Jesus Christ, the 
God who has given unto you such wisdom." In the salutation 
of the Epistle to the Ephesians", he styles them predestined 
and chosen, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, 
our God." And in the Epistle itself he writes ; "There is [114] 
nothing hidden from the Lord 3 , but even our secret things 3 TOV Kt- 
are nigh unto Him. Let us, therefore, do all things as piw 
having Him dwelling within us, that we may be His temples, 

i Praef. in torn. ii. Dogm. Theol., c. " eV Bedpan TOV Uarpbs /cat I-rjcrov 

2- 6- XpiffTov TOV eou mij>. p. 16. Pp. 

k [ 1. p. 100. Spiritus, qui desur- 11.] 

sum est, quietus est et humilis et o O i>5ei> XavQavei TOV Kvpiov, aAA& 

nemini respondet interrogates, nee sin- Kal ra KpwirTa fiftuv eyyvs avT<p eVnV. 

gulis respondet: neque cum vult ho- vdvra ovv TTOIW^V, ws UVTOV eV JHU.W 

mini loquitur Spiritus Dei, sed tune KO.TOIKOVVTOS, tva. d>[j.ev O.VTOV vaol, Kal 

loquitur cum vult Deus.] aur^s ?, Iv ^/ e&s fo&v oVep ical 

A.D. 1 646. fffTiv Kal (pav7](reTai irpo Trpotruirov y]^S>v, 

m 5o^aC<w Ir/a-ow Xpiffriv TOV eoj/, e | &v SiKaiws ayairu/j.^ o.vr6v. p. 26. 

rbv OVTUS (To^iVai Ta. p. ]. [p. [ 15. p. 15.] 



1 [or " be 
gotten and 
not begot 

(scil.) after 
the flesh ; 
but see 
what fol 


2 Instead 
of yevvri- 
rbs teal 


96 Remarkable passage from Ignatius considered; 

and that He may be within us, [who is] our God ; which 
indeed is so, and will be manifested before our face, where 
fore we justly love Him." That Ignatius in this passage 
is speaking of Christ, there can be no doubt, not merely 
from the word Kvpios (Lord), by which he always desig 
nates Christ, but also from the whole context of his dis 
course, which treats only of Jesus the Saviour. Again, in 
his Epistle to the Romans P ; " Permit me to be an imita 
tor of the suffering of my God." But there is a most re 
markable passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians; where 
Ignatius thus speaks of Christ <*; "There is one Physician, 
both fleshly and spiritual; made and not made 1 ; having 
become God incarnate," ev vapid ^evo^evos Seos, (instead 
of which Athanasius, Theodoret, and Gelasius have ev dv- 
6pu)TT<p Seas, "God in man," which comes to the same 
thing,) " true life in death," eV Oavdrw far) d\r)6t,vrj, (for so, 
not ev dOavdrq), "in the immortal," ought it to be read, as 
Athanasius, Theodoret, and Gelasius agree in reading, and 
as the sense certainly requires,) "both of Mary and of God." 
Here we rightly translate yevwrjrbs KOI dyevvrjros, " made and 
not made," as did Gelasius, since the sense requires it, and 
it is very well known that by the Greeks the words yevijrbs 
and ryevvyrbs were used promiscuously ; although the Catholic 
writers of the Church for the most part, especially such as 
lived after the third century, distinguished more accurately 
between them, in the question of the divinity of the Son. 
Theodoret, indeed, (Dial, i.,) reads yevvrjrb? e f dyevvrjrov 2 , 
("begotten of the unbegotten;") the reading, however, 
which I have followed, is confirmed not merely by the 
Greek MS. of the Medicean library, and by the ancient 
Latin version of Ussher, but also by Athanasius, On the 
Synods, and Gelasius r , On the two Natures ; and it is also 
absolutely required by the manifest antithesis, which is car 
ried on throughout the passage, between the two natures of 
Christ and the attributes peculiar to each, "fleshly and 

P eirirpefyare /uot ^.i^r^v elf/cu [TOV] eV aapKl y^v6^vos eos, ei/ Bavdry "^ 

irdOovs rov eou fj.ov.-n. 60. [ 6. p. a.\t)9ivT], /cat ec Mapias Kal e/f eoD. p. 

29] 21. [ 7. p. 13.] 

i els Iarp6s effriv, (TapKiKOs T Kal r Tertullian too read the passage in 

y, yevvrjTos Kal ayevi -riros, this way. See chap. 7. 3. of this book. 

Twofold meaning of dyevijros or dyevvrjTos. 97 

spiritual," &c., which is broken off by the reading of Theo- BOOK n. 
doret. I make no doubt that Theodoret herein followed a CH R A g "" 
copy transcribed by some smatterer, who, thinking that dyev- I^N ATIUS . 
vr)Tov necessarily meant " unbegotten," that is, one who hath 
the principle of his being from none but himself, (in which 
sense the word is applicable to God the Father alone,) pre 
sumed to alter dyevvrjros into e f wyevvqTov. And for the 
same reason the interpolator of his works has entirely omitted 
this clause of the sentence in Ignatius, <yevwr)Tos KOI dyevvr)- 
ros : just as, in the Epistle to the Trallians, he has pronounced 
accursed all who say that the Son of God is dyevwrjro?, (in 
the sense, namely, in which that is the peculiar property of 
God the Father,) on those, that is, who make no distinction 
between the Father and the Son. Hence also, before the 
passage of Ignatius which we are now considering, he in 
serts some remarks of his own concerning God the Father, 
in which he says that He alone is dyevvrjros. If Sandius 
had understood this, he would never have wearied himself 
and his reader so uselessly, about the condemnation of the 
word ayevvrjTos by the pseudo-Ignatius, as he does in the first [116] 
book of his " Ecclesiastical History laid open," where he treats 
of Ignatius. The genuine reading of the passage being thus 
established, every one must perceive that these words of Igna 
tius are a death-blow to the Arian blasphemy ; inasmuch as 
Christ is herein not only acknowledged as God, truly im 
mortal, in flesh which at one time was mortal, but is also 
expressly declared to be not-made, that is, uncreate. And 
so the great Athanasius has admirably expressed the mean, 
ing of Ignatius in the following passage, in which he has 
also accurately distinguished the twofold acceptation of the 
word ctyewjTos or dyevvijTos, as we find it used by the ancients : 
" We are persuaded," he says*, " that the blessed Ignatius also 
wrote correctly, when he designated Him [the Son of God] 
as generated because of His flesh, for Christ ( was made flesh / 
yet withal ingenerate, inasmuch as He is not of the number 
of things made and generated, but Son from Father. And 

8 p. 71. e 7eVeTO uyevnTov Se, 2-n /^ TUJV irotrj- 

1 7re7rei<Tyue0a 6n Kal & fj.aKa.pios Iy- /j-drav Kal yevr)T>v etrriv, aAA. vlbs e/c 

vdrios opOus Hypatye, yefrjrbv avr dv Ae- Tla.Tp6s* OVK o.^v oov^v Se, 6ri Kal ol 

yew Sia TT;P adpKa 6 yap Xpiarbs <rap e/ pTj/c^res ej/ rb ayevfirov, rJ 





1 genitum 
(hoc est 

2 omnia 
(hoc est, 
quae facta 


3 T< ffvva i- 

ft mox. 


98 The objection, that Ignatius was mistaken in the 

we are aware also, that such as have asserted that the inge- 
nerate is One, meaning the Father, wrote this, not as though 
the Word were generate 1 or made, but because [the Father] 
has not any who is to Him a cause [of being], and rather 
Himself is Father of Wisdom, and by Wisdom hath made all 
things which are generated 2 "." We shall, however, adduce 
more out of Ignatius afterwards, in the third book x , concern 
ing the Co-eternity 3 of the Son. 

7. And now we must have a few words with the author of 
the Irenicum and Sandius. The remarkable passage of Ig 
natius, which I have quoted, had been also brought forward 
by Petavius, out of Theodoret and Athanasius, with some 
others in addition out of Theodoret only. But what does 
the author of the Irenicum^ say in reply to them? listen, 
and you will be surprised at his effrontery ! " The passages," 
he says, " which Petavius has quoted from Theodoret, and 
which he supposes to be quite * genuine, may be understood 
of the man Christ only, as born through the Spirit of God." 
Is it indeed so? in that case, say I, any words may be made 
to mean any thing. And so the author of the Irenicum 
himself, not venturing to abide by this answer, devises an 
other most suited to his desperate cause ! His words are ; 
" The passages alleged out of Theodoret are not of force to 
shew that the profession of a twofold nature in Christ was de 
rived from the tradition of Christ and the Apostles. For 
even allowing this profession to have existed at that time also, 
why may it not have been a tradition from some false Christ 
or false apostle, and not necessarily 5 a tradition of Christ and 
the Apostles ; just like some other strange 6 and even absurd 
notions of Ignatius or of other ancient writers, which even 
Petavius himself does not admit?" With what knot are you 
to hold this Proteus ? With what argument to bind such an 
opponent? He affirms that Justin first originated the notion 
of the divine nature of Jesus Christ ; we prove against him, 

VVTOS rov \6yov ovrws 
6n M^7 fX ei r ^ v <^ riot/ j Ka -l fJ-a\\ov avrbs 
TIaTTip ,ueV ecrrt TT}S (rotyias, ra Se 76- 
j/rjra iravra sv cro<f)ia Triroir]K. De Sy 
nod. Arim. et Seleuc., torn. i. p. 922. 
[vol. i. p. 761. 47.] 

" [Concerning the words 
and yei/i/rjrbs, compare Suicer on the 
words ayevriTos and yevr)r6s. Huet. 
Origen.ii. 2. 2. 23. Waterland, Works, 
vol. iii. pp. 239, 2GO. B.] 

* [See book iii. chap. 1.] 

y Irenic., p. 27. 

doctrine of our Lord s Divinity, shewn to be unreasonable. 99 

that Ignatius, who was earlier than Justin, nay even contem- BOOK n. 
porary with the Apostles, held the same opinion. He next c A 6 P> 7 " 
miserably wrests the words of Ignatius ! and at last, distrust-. f^ NA ^ s 
ing this his own interpretation, comes to such a pitch of 
madness as not to shrink from asserting that it is by no means [118] 
improbable, that even Ignatius himself was deceived by some 
false apostle ! I suppose, if at last we were to adduce as a wit 
ness some Apostle in person 1 , we should effect nothing with ipsissi- 
him. Indeed experience has by this time shewn, that persons nium< 
of this party toss about [as worthless] the very writings of 
the Apostles, (which certainly speaks no less clearly of the 
divinity of Christ than do the remains of the fathers;) and 
by their glosses, so strangely alien from the evident mean 
ing of the words, pervert and misinterpret them, at the same 
time that they omit no contrivance or labour whereby to 42 
depreciate their trustworthiness and authority. If these 
heretics would at length openly make profession of their 
unbelief, and publicly aver that the doctrine of the divine 
nature of Jesus Christ, which has been delivered by the 
Apostles and all the Doctors of the Church, is in their opi 
nion repugnant to sound reason; (in their opinion, I say, 
mere weak men as they are, that crawl upon the ground, and 
are unable to explain perfectly the nature of even the little 
worm, " who is their brother," much less to comprehend in 
the narrow limits of their minds the infinite essence of the 
most high and holy God, and of the effluence 2 of His mind !) 2 ^ ^ i a 
and [would say] that on that account they call into question 
the whole of the Christian religion, (confirmed though it be 
by miracles so many and so great, and, further, fully approv 
ing itself to us by its own innate light and authority, in all 
those points which do not go beyond our powers of compre 
hension, especially in those which relate to virtue and mo 
rality ;) [were they to do this,] they would exhibit, I think, 
not much greater impiety, and certainly far more can 
dour and ingenuousness ! But, says the author of the Ireni- 
cum, Ignatius entertained some notions not only strange 3 3 incom- 
but even palpably absurd, which you yourselves even do not modas 
admit. Where, I ask, doth he state them? Produce a pas 
sage, thou nameless one, out of the genuine Epistles of Ig 
natius, and we will at once yield you the victory. Certainly no 

H 2 

100 Sandius quotes the spurious and interpolated Epistles. 

ON THE one of all those adversaries who have been most opposed to 
C TA N N S Ti B A- Polycarp s Collection* [of those Epistles], neither Blondel, 
LITY OF n0 r Salmasius, nor Daille, nor Daille s recent anonymous 
champion 1 , have yet produced any thing of this kind out of 


that collection, but what very learned men, Ussher, Vossius, 
que, see Hammond, and Pearson, have clearly proved to have been 
above, i. 2. ki ame d w ithout cause. Besides, if we were to allow that 
Ignatius in certain more minute points had turned aside 
a little from the doctrine of the Apostles, can it, on that 
account, seem probable to any one that he was thus 
shamefully mistaken in so momentous an article of the 
Christian faith ? Is there any one, that would even harbour 
a suspicion, that he, who had conversed so familiarly with 
the true Apostles of Jesus Christ, and whom the tradition 
of all antiquity has declared to have been a martyr for the 
apostolic faith, was deceived by some false apostle in a pri 
mary doctrine of Christianity ? 

-- Credat Judseus Apella, 
Non ego -- 

8. I now come to Sandius, who in book i. of his Hist. 
sprorsus Eccl. Enucl, in treating on Ignatius*, is altogether silent 2 
dissimulat. on the test i mon i es w hich we have adduced out of the genu 
ine Epistles of Ignatius in favour of the Catholic doctrine ; 
whilst from the interpolated Epistles of Ignatius, as well 
as from those which have been falsely ascribed to him, he 
brings forward several passages, and endeavours by them 
to establish the blasphemies of Arius. One would suppose 
that he had never seen the editions of Ignatius by Ussher 
and Vossius, nor ever read what these same learned men, and 
Hammond and Pearson, have written concerning the Epistles 
of Ignatius. And yet he mentions Ussher s edition in this 
same place ; and elsewhere, I mean in his book on the Eccle 
siastical Writers, where also he treats of Ignatius, he men 
tions the editions both of Vossius and Ussher ; and we cannot 
doubt that he was even at that time acquainted with Ham 
mond s Dissertations, and still more with Pearson s Vindicia, 
[120] which latter was published in the year 1672, that is, four 

[i. e. the collection of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, sent by St. Polycarp to 
the Philippians, with his own Letter still extant ] 
p. 70. 

Of the seven genuine Epistles of St. Ignatius. 101 

years previous to the second edition of his Hist. Eccl. Enucl. BOOK n. 
For the sake of such of ray readers as are not familiar with c ?^* 8 " 
ecclesiastical antiquity, I will add a brief and fair statement I GNATIUS 
of the whole subject. Besides the Epistles bearing the name 
of Ignatius, which are extant only in Latin, and which at 
this day all critics, whether Roman Catholics or belonging to 
ourselves, unanimously reject, there are twelve Greek Epistles, 
of which seven are mentioned by Eusebius b , but not the 
remaining five. The seven mentioned by him are; 1. That to 
the Ephesians ; 2. To the Magnesians ; 3. To the Trallians ; 
4. To the Romans; 5. To the Philadelphians ; 6. To the 
Smyrneans; 7. To Poly carp, bishop of Smyrna. The other 
five are ; 1 . That to Maria Cassobolita ; 2. To the people of 
Tarsus ; 3. To the people of Antioch ; 4. To Hero, the dea 
con; 5. To the Philippians. Further, of the seven Epistles 
which were known to Eusebius, the Greek editions are of 
two classes; one which has been long extant, the other that 
which was first edited by Isaac Vossius from the Medi- 
cean MS. Of the five Epistles on which Eusebius is silent, 
the very learned Pearson thus most truly writes ; " A dis 
tinction seems to be correctly drawn between those seven 
Epistles which are mentioned by Eusebius, and which the 
rest of the most ancient fathers frequently quote, and five 
others, which were not acknowledged by any Greek writer, 
until after several centuries, and on that account are, with 
good reason, either called in question, or even entirely re 
jected : and that, not only because it is unlikely, that if they 
had been extant in his time, they could have been un 
known to Eusebius, or could have been passed over by him, 
if he had known them ; but also from the circumstance that, 
both in style 1 , they appear to be very different from those } modus 
enumerated by Eusebius ; and, in subject matter, are more lo( l uendl - 
in harmony with the doctrine, the institutions, and the cus 
toms of the later Church, and resemble the Ignatian Epistles 
mentioned by Eusebius only through imitation and that ex 
cessively affected." As to Sandius assertion d , "that the 
style of the five Epistles," which were unknown to Eusebius, 
" so agrees with the former undoubted Epistles, that it is 

b fEuseb. E. H., lib. iii. c. 36.] Ignat, c. 4. 

c In Procemio ad Vind. Epist. S. d Ue Script. Eccles., p. 18. 


102 Sandius arguments for the genuineness of the spurious 

absurd to doubt of Ignatius being their author," it was reck- 
" lessly made, as his way is. Certainly if by the former un- 
OF doubted Epistles he means the seven mentioned by Euse- 
HE SON ~ bius, as they were published l prior to the edition of Vos- 
vulgatae. g .^ ^ . g cerfca ^ n ]y true fa^ there is a very great simi 
larity of style between them and the other five. And what 
wonder? It was the judgment of Ussher 6 (and the thing 
speaks for itself) that it was the same forger " who interpo- 

2 incrusta- lated 2 the genuine Epistles of Ignatius, and increased them 

by adding as many moreV Let any one, however, compare 
the seven Epistles, when the interpolated passages are taken 

3 defaeca- out 3 , as edited by Vossius, with the remaining five, and he will 

certainly admit, if he is able to judge of the case, that there 
is a very wide difference between the two, in respect both of 
style and of doctrine. In this one particular alone is there 
an apparent resemblance ; in that the impostor, who patched 
together the five Epistles, employs sundry forms of construc 
tion, and expressions which are in familiar use in the genuine 
Ignatius/ but these too are so studiously affected by the 
Mmpor- forger, and so thrust in out of place 4 , that from this evi- 
* U orex ro ^ eace a l ne tne imposture may be detected 5 . In the same 
datuV. place Sandius further argues in this way; " Origen, in his sixth 
Homily on St. Luke, quotes some words from the Epistle to 
the Philippians," (one, that is, of the five which we reject,) 

6 auctori- "from which its genuineness 6 is evident." But here the sophist 
tas. writes with his usual shamelessness. The words of Origen 

[122] (in his sixth Homily 8 on Luke) concerning Ignatius and his 

7 eleganter. Epistle, are as follows ; " I find it well 7 remarked in a letter of 

a certain martyr, I mean Ignatius, who was bishop of An- 
tioch next after Peter, and who, in a persecution, fought with 
beasts at Rome, that the virginity of Mary was unknown 
to the prince of this world. " Not a word is here said about 
the Epistle to the Philippians ; whilst in that written to the 
Ephesians, (one of Eusebius seven,) we now read as follows 11 ; 
e\a6e TOV ap^ovTO, TOV alwvo? TOVTOV r) rrapOevla Map Las, 
" the virginity of Mary was unknown to the prince of this 

e Proleg. ad Epist. Ignat, c. 5. dico, episcopum Aiitiochiae post Pe- 

f [Ussher rejected the Epistle to trum secundum, qui in persecutions 

Polycarp, thus making the number of Romae pugnavit ad bestias, Principem 

the spurious and genuine equal.] saeculi hujus latuit virginitas Maria. 

g Eleganter in cujusdam martyris [vol. iii. p. 938.] 
Epistola scriptum reperi, Ignatium h [19. p. 16.] 

and interpolated Epistles of St. Ignatius ; refuted. 103 

world." Granted, that this sentence is repeated by the im- BOOK n. 
poster who aped Ignatius in the spurious Epistle to the CU P 8 * If * 
Philippians, what follows ? In order, however, that the impos- IGNATIUS. 
ture of the author of this Epistle to the Philippians may be 
more clearly seen, even out of Origen himself, we must ob 
serve that the passage of Ignatius, which he cites, is indeed 
found, word for word, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, thus, 
" the virginity of Mary was unknown to the prince of this 
world ;" whereas in the Epistle to the Philippians it has been 
altered, a ridiculous apostrophe being made to the devil, thus 1 ; 
" For many things are hidden from thee ; the virginity of Mary, 
the strange birth," &c. But for the present leaving Sandius, 
a writer who deserves the detestation of all lovers of truth and 
fairness, let us return to the right reverend Pearson, who 
further sets forth his own judgment, and that of other very 
learned men, concerning the seven Epistles, known to Euse- 
bius, as they existed in the Greek text prior to the edition 
of Vossius. His words are ; " It has been correctly observed 
by very many persons, that even the seven most ancient and 
most genuine Epistles, in the Greek edition of that period," 
(i. e. before the edition of Vossius,) " were interpolated and 
corrupted ; and this is plain from the passages adduced by 
the ancient fathers, which in that edition either do not appear, 
or are not correctly given, as well as from many other pas- [123] 
sages, which agree neither with antiquity, nor with the senti 
ments of Ignatius, and are inserted in a way that does not 
harmonize with the general tenour of the Epistles." The 
worthy prelate has also, throughout his very lucid work, proved 
on sure grounds, and to the satisfaction of all learned men, 
who are not biassed by excessive party-spirit, the genuineness 
of the seven Epistles of Ignatius, enumerated by Eusebius, as 
they have been edited by Vossius. Now if, out of these seven 
Epistles, (as they were published after the Medicean MS.,) 
agreeing as they do with the quotations made from them by 
Athanasius, Theodoret, Gelasius, and others of the ancients, 
Sandius can produce one single iota, which is repugnant to 
the Nicene creed, we will no longer refuse to admit, that Ig 
natius, an apostolic bishop, and most celebrated martyr, de- 

1 iroAAa yap <re Aayflgj/er r) irapd evict. Mapias, 6 irapado^os TOKCTOS, K.r.A. [8. p. 

Ho. 1 

104 The spurious Epistles, however, opposed to Arianism. 



1 ante 



serves to be classed with the forerunners of the impious heresy 
- of Arius. This, however, we are perfectly certain that he never 1 
w iu k e a k} e to do. We are not therefore by any means to 
account Ignatius an Arian, but Sandius, rather, an egregious 
calumniator of a most holy father. It must also in the mean 
time be observed, that even in the spurious and interpolated 
Epistles of Ignatius, (such as Sandius employs,) very many 
things are found diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy ; 
and that the passages which have been brought forward by 
Sandius out of these same Epistles, will for the most part 
easily admit of a catholic construction ; this it would not 
have been difficult (had we now leisure for it) to demonstrate. 
But enough of Ignatius k . And thus far have we heard the 
venerable triumvirate of apostolic writers confirming by their 
witness the creed of Nicaea. 





1. OF the writers of the apostolic age, besides those whose 
views we set forth in the preceding chapter, there remain 
in all two others, Clement 1 of Rome and Poly carp. I have 
not mentioned them, hitherto, amongst the witnesses of the 
catholic tradition in the apostolic age, both because very few 
genuine remains of them are extant at this day, and because, 
even in those which exist, they touch sparingly and with less 
clearness on the doctrine of the divinity of the Son, as being 
intent upon other subjects. Since, however, the author of 
the Irenicum and Sandius have laid hold of this very circum 
stance as a handle for making false charges against them, 
(the one dragging forward these most holy fathers by force 
and against their will 2 , into a sanctioning of the Socinian 
protra? blasphemy, the other of the Arian,) I have thought it best, in 


k [For other testimonies to the Ni- l Clement succeeded to the Roman 

cene faith from the genuine Epistles of see in the year 64 or 65, and occupied 

St. Ignatius, see Grabe s notes on it to the year 81 or 83. Cave in Clem, 

this chapter in the Appendix.] BOWYER. 


Photius statement respecting Si. Clement of Rome. 1 05 

passing, to say a few words in opposition to their fallacies. BOOK ir. 
I will first treat of Clement. l-s/ 

2. Both the author of the Irenicum and Sandius (on the CLEM R 
suggestion of Petavius l ) observe, that Photius long ago sus- l Petavio 
pected him of heresy against the divinity of Christ. Photius, momtore - 
it would seem, in treating of Clement and his Epistles, after 
mentioning certain other things in his first Epistle as deserv 
ing of censure, remarks this also m ; " That in calling our Lord 
Jesus Christ a high-priest and defender 2 n , he does not em- 
ploy concerning Him those expressions which are of a higher Tr?I/ * 
character and suitable to God ; not however that he any where 
openly utters blasphemy against Him in these respects." But 
Photius, who is too severe a critic of the ancients, must 
himself bear the disgrace of his own rashness ; and let no 
one blame me for expressing myself freely respecting a com 
paratively recent patriarch of Constantinople , who, wantonly 
and without any cause, brings under the suspicion of heresy 
a Roman patriarch appointed by the Apostles themselves. 
Those persons, indeed, have always appeared to me very ab 
surd, who, upon reading an epistle or short treatise of an [134] 
ancient writer, (and that perhaps the only undoubted relic 
of the author which has been preserved,) and finding there 
some doctrine of the Christian faith either altogether un 
touched, or not explained with sufficient clearness, (because 
the author, as his subject requires, is intent on some other 
point,) at once suspect him of some heresy or other. It is, 
however, enough for our purpose, that Clement nowhere 
in his Epistle, (on Photius own admission,) blasphemes our 
Lord Christ. 

3. Leaving Photius, then, I come to the author of the 
Irenicum, who thus argues against the received catholic 
doctrine 3 , from the first Epistle of Clement?; "It is cer- 3 traditio- 
tain that Clement, upon examination, will be found to nem 
speak continually in such wise as to leave 4 and attribute 4 relinquat. 
to the Father a superiority 5 over Christ, by calling Him 5 
on all occasions Almighty God, the One God, the Crea- 

ra on apxiepea Knl TrpoarraTrju TOV n [Photius refers to S. Clem, ad Cor. 

Kvpiov yn&v ITJO-OW Xpurrkv efovo/i<- i. 36, 58; pp. 168, 181.] 

*, ouSe ras Oeoirpeire is Ka l v^XoTfpas Elected patriarch in the year 858. 

MnJKe -n-epl auroD (puvds ov yu?> ovS Cave on Photius. BOWYER. 

airapa.Ka\vTrTcas avrbi/ ovSafj.^ eV TOVTOIS p Irenicum, pp. 23, 24-. 
i. Cod. cxxvi. 

106 Testimonies from St. Clem. R. to the Consubstantiality / 

tor of all things, and God, &c. Whereas, on the other hand, 
he describes Christ, (as I have also remarked of Hermas,) in. 
LITY OF such a manner only as to seem scarcely * to have acknow 
ledged in Him any nature other than the human." What 




e ,/ ~ he here alleges concerning the pre-eminence 2 of the Father 
being so religiously observed by Clement, does not excite in 
me the very slightest difficulty ; inasmuch as I well know, and 
recollect, that the Apostle Paul also did the same, (though to 
my mind it is beyond all controversy, that he both believed 
and taught the true Godhead of the Son,) and that the same 
expressions were employed respecting God the Father by all 
the fathers, even by the Nicene fathers themselves, and by 
those who wrote subsequently to that council. The reason for 
this, indeed, we shall clearly explain below, in the fourth book, 
On the Subordination of the Son, &c. And now to those words 
of the anonymous writer, in which he says that Clement, as 
also Hermas, "describes Christ in such a manner only, as that 
he scarcely seems to have acknowledged in Him any nature 

[135] other than the human," I reply, that what he says of Hermas 

3 splendi- is a glaring 3 falsehood, as I have already most clearly proved. 

And as regards Clement, the heretic was cautious in adding 
that word " scarcely ;" for it would have been too great effron 
tery to have said, that nothing could be found in the Epistle 
of Clement, to indicate that there was in Christ any other than 
a human nature. Of this kind, for instance, is the passage 
in which, describing the magnificent gifts (TO, jjLeya\ela TWV 
Swpewv), which were of old bestowed by God on the family of 
49 Abraham on account of his faith, the author says q ; "From 
him [came] our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh ;" 
where by the limitation, " according to the flesh," it is plainly 
intimated, that there was in Christ another nature besides the 
human, or that flesh which He derived from Abraham. Be 
sides, it is very unlikely that Clement should have entertained 
notions of Christ so mean and low, as to regard Him as a 

4 $i*bv &i>- mere man 4 , when he dignifies Him with titles so exalted. 

For he styles Christ 1 , "The effulgence of the Majesty of 
God (aTravyacrjjLa rrjs ^e^akwcrvv^s rov Qeov) " and soon 
after teaches us, that the superiority of Christ over all 

1 e | O.VTOV 6 Kvpios Iriaovs rb Kara <jdpKa. p. 72. [ 32. p. 166.] 
p. 82. [ 36. p. 168.] 

parallel to those in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 107 

the angels consists in this, that they are ministers (keirovp- BOOK n. 
yol), that is, servants of God, the Lord of all creatures; C ? A 3 P " 1 * 
whilst He is not a servant, but the Son of God. Here, CLEM R 
however, Clement agreed in expression with the author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and indeed the learned Junius 
discovered in many passages such a resemblance, both of 
thought and expression, between that Epistle and this of 
Clement, that (following Jerome and other ancient writers) 
he imagined that the same person was the author of both. 
Now he must be blinder than a mole, who does not perceive 
that by the words air -au^y acr/ua TTJS So^rjy rov Ilarpos, " the 
effulgence of the Father s glory," Heb. i. 3, is meant that 
divine nature and majesty of the Son, in which, before the 
world was 1 , He existed with God the Father, in which He [136] 
Himself made the worlds 2 , and in which also, by His own >antesae- 
almighty power, He even now upholds and governs the fa- 

brie of the universe. ipsa condi- 

4. Elsewhere 8 , in the same Epistle, Clement had also dlt 
called our Saviour, "The sceptre of the Majesty of God;" 
(TO a/ciJTrrpov rfj? fj,eya\cocrvi>ij$ rov Seov.) Now if this 
passage be brought forward entire, and the scope and con 
text of the author be considered, it will sufficiently shew 
what the view of this apostolic writer was concerning 
Christ. In it he is exhorting the Corinthians to humility 
or lowliness 3 of mind, from the amazing example of Christ, 3 modes- 
in these words 4 ; "The sceptre of the Majesty of God u , tiara * 
our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp of pride 
and arrogancy, though He might have so come, but with 
lowliness of mind 4 ." I consider it certain, that Clement in 
these words meant to express the divine nature and majesty 
of the Saviour, in which He subsisted before His birth of 
the most blessed Virgin. Nor is there room for doubt on 
this point, when it is observed, that Clement calls Christ 
" the sceptre of the Majesty of God," in that state in which 
He existed before His coming into the world. For if Christ 
were not the sceptre of God s Majesty prior to His advent 

8 p. 36. J 16. p. 156.] TaTreivoQpov&V K.T.A. [Ibid.] 

1 T& <ricr)irTpov TT/S /j.eya\ca(rvvi]s TOV u j. e . the power of God, (1 Cor. i.24,) 

eoS,_ 6 Kvpios vjfMov Xpiorrbs lijcrovs, by a metonymy of the sign for the 

ou/c ^A.0ef eV K^ITT^ aXa^oveias, ouSe thing signified. 
, Kaitrep Si/Wyuej/os 1 ciAAo 

108 Passage in St. Clem. R. parallel to St. Paul s, Phil. ii. 6. 
ON THE among men. of what nature. I ask, will be that condescen- 


STANTIA- sion 1 of His, which Clement so greatly celebrates; in that, 


during the period of His advent, He did not demean Him- 

a-v Kara se ^ as *^ e sce P^ re f *he Majesty of God ? Besides, Clement 

Pans. in this passage proposes Christ as an example of infinite 

[137] condescension, which, in our own small measure, we may 

and ought to imitate indeed, (just as we should the perfect 

holiness of God, Matt. v. 48 ; 1 Pet. i. 15, 16,) though we shall 

never be able to equal it. For thus, after quoting the words 

of Isaiah and David, predicting the humiliation of Christ, 

the holy man goes on to say v ; "Ye see, beloved, what that 

pattern is which has been vouchsafed to us. For if the Lord 

was so lowly in mind, what shall we do, who have come 

beneath the yoke of His grace?" Where, however, is that 

infinite disparity, if you conceive Christ to be merely and 

2 purum simply man 2 ? This passage of Clement is clearly parallel to 

miii U em h " tliat of St - Paul to the Philippians, ii. 6, &c. : for whereas there 

it is, " being in the form of God," here it is, " the sceptre of 

God s Majesty ;" and whereas there it is, " He thought it 

not robbery to be equal with God," here it is, " He came not 

in the pomp of pride and arrogance, though He might have 

3 commen- so come." And even as Paul commends 3 the infinite con 

descension of Christ from this circumstance, that, being in 

4 suam the form of God, He made no display of His equality 4 in 

honour with God, (for this is what is signified by the words 
"He thought it not robbery 5 to be equal with God,") so 
Clement teaches, that Christ, though in very deed the sceptre 
of the Majesty of God, still concealed His greatness when 
He came [to sojourn] among men ; i.e. a stress should be laid 
upon the words, "although He might have so come:" (fcaiirep 
$vvdfj,evos.) Lastly, Paul s expression, " He made Himself 
of no reputation," (eKevaxrev eavrov,) is evidently tantamount 
to that of Clement, " He was lowly in mind," (eraTretvo^po- 
vrjcre.} If the reader wants an interpreter to open more clearly 
the meaning both of Paul and Clement, let him by all means 
[1 38] consult the noble passage of Justin, which we shall adduce be 
low, out of his Epistle to Diognetus, chap. iv. 7 of this book. 

v opart, avSpes aya-n-rjTol, TIS 6 VTTO- pev ^ue?s, of UTTO rbi> frybv rrjs 
ypa/u/ubs 6 SeSo/teVos TJ/JUV. d yap 6 Ku- avrov [5t avTov] 4\06vTfs. p. 40. 
otos oi nccs eTaTr*ivo(pp6vri<Tev, ri iroir)(ro- 16. p. 167.] 

Of the second Epistle of St. Clement of Rome. 109 

5. But there is extant another Epistle under the name of BOOK u. 
Clement in a mutilated condition, which, Eusebius says x , " was c A 4 5 m 
not known equally with the former one." Without doubt, CLEM. R. 
the first Epistle of Clement, whether you look to the abund 
ance of 1 matters treated of in it, or to its vigorous style, is far ! copiam. 
superior to the second ; and accordingly, as it deserved, was 50 
held in greater esteem, and was more frequently quoted by 
the doctors of the Church. From this circumstance it was 
that Jerome and Ruffinus, in this instance not very happy 
interpreters of Eusebius, have stated, that the second Epistle 
was absolutely rejected and disallowed by the ancients as 
altogether spurious. But it has been truly said by an excel 
lent man, " Reliance ought to be placed on the author, not on 
the interpreters." But that this Epistle was called in ques 
tion by some persons, even in ancient times, seems to me to 
have arisen from the fact that the first alone, for the reasons 
I have mentioned, was judged worthy of being read in the 
public assemblies of the Church ; whilst the other, not being 
thus honoured, was by degrees neglected, as if it were not 
really the writing of Clement. On this account also other 
Epistles of his (for it is, in my opinion, beyond doubt, that 
the holy man wrote others also) have been utterly lost 2 . Mntercide- 
At any rate the second Epistle, as it is called, was circulated runt 
in Clement s name before the time of Eusebius ; it was ad 
dressed to the Corinthians ; like the first, it was engaged in 
refuting their error concerning the resurrection of the body ; 
expressions and phrases familiarly used by Clement occur 
throughout it ; and in short there is in it nothing strange or 
unworthy of Clement, so as to warrant us in suspecting it 
to be the forgery of an impostor. An additional argument 
in its favour may be found in the fact, that both the Epistles [139] 
of Clement are equally received in the Apostolic Canons, 
(in the last canon,) and are acknowledged by Epiphanius and 
others. Now, in the very beginning of this second Epistle 
we ready; "Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ 
as of God." And afterwards; "It behoves us not to en- 

. . . Kal ov 8 . . 
Eccl. Hist. iii. 38. v ^t v -nepl rrjs (rcarripias T]p.}V eV T$ yap 

y o.SeA^oi, ovroas Se? faus [1. v/ ] (ppovw r)/ p.iKpa Trepl avrov, [uupa 
(ppovew -irepl Ififfov Xpiarov, us irepl K al e ATrffouc;/ Xafte iv. [ 1. p. 185.] 
06ou, [is irepl Kpirov %<i)vr<av KO.\ ve- 

110 Passage out of St. Clement preserved by St. Basil. 

ON THE tertain low views of our salvation 1 ; for whilst we think little 

BTANTIA"- f Him, little have we to hope to receive [of Him]. " No 

LITY OF doubt the allusion here is to the heresy of Cerinthus, which 

- was not unknown either to Clement or the Corinthians. It 



is, however, especially to be observed, that Clement herein 
instructs us, that we ought not only to call Christ God, (which 
neither the Arians nor the Socinians refuse to do,) but to 
think of Him in very truth as God ; that is to say, we must 
conceive that idea of Christ in our minds, as of Him who is 
God, not a mere creature ; and that they who think other 
wise of Christ endanger their salvation. There is a remark 
able passage concerning the twofold nature of Christ, in the 
ninth chapter 2 of the same Epistle, (according to the division 
of the last Oxford edition, and, as I hear, of Cotelerius also,) 
in which the author, in treating of the resurrection of the 
body, writes thus; "Jesus Christ the Lord, who saved us, 
being at first spirit, became flesh, arid thus called us. In 
like manner we also shall receive our reward in this flesh." 
He here calls the divine nature of Christ, in which He sub 
sisted before His assuming flesh, spirit (Trvev^a) ; as do also 
[140] his contemporaries, the author of the Epistle ascribed to Bar 
nabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and the divinely inspired writers of 
the New Testament, as I have already shewn a . Besides these 

2 mantissae passages it may be mentioned, (by way of addition 2 ,) that 
Basil (in his work, On the Holy Spirit, c. 29) brings for 
ward a remarkable testimony of Clement of Rome, on the 
doctrine of the most Holy Trinity. The passage of Basil 
stands thus b ; "But Clement also, in more primitive style, 
says, ( God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy 
Ghost ; " where there is no doubt that Clement said " God 
liveth" in the same sense in which in Scripture God is called 
"the living God;" that is, in contrast with the idols, and 
dead and feigned gods of the heathen. He declares, there 
fore, that God the Father, and Jesus Christ, (that is to say, 
in so far forth as He is spirit, subsisting even before His 

3 adeoque. assumption of our flesh, nay 3 from everlasting,) and the 

z [&S~\ ^(d^ lijffovs) Xptcrrbs 6 Kvpios, * aAAa Kai 6 

6 (Twcras r,,&v fj.ev rb irp&rov Tlv^v^a, Zy, (f)f]alv, 6 &ebs, Kal 6 Kvpios Irjcrovs 

fjevero <rap|, KCU ovrws y/uas fKd\faev Xpiarbs, KCU rb Ilver/na rb ayiov. torn. 

ovrws Kal fine?* eV ravrr] rp trap/a onro- ii. p. 358. edit. Paris. 1637. [vol. iii. p. 

\7)^6fj.eea rov ni(r66v. [p. 188.] 61. 72.1 

a [Book i. chap. 2. 5.] 

Sandius quotes the Apost. Constitutions as St. Clement s. 1 1 1 

Holy Ghost, are that living and true God, whom alone, re 
nouncing idols, we ought to worship and adore. Now I am 
well aware that these words of Clement are nowhere to be 
found either in the first c Epistle to the Corinthians, or in 
that fragment of the second which is extant : whether they 
occurred in that part of it which is lost, I know not. But 
the credit due to the great and excellent Basil plainly re 
quires us to believe that Clement, that very early father, 
somewhere wrote to that effect ! . i talia 

6. I now come to Sandius, who brings the charge of Arian- scn P slsse - 
ism against the holy Clement of Rome d , out of the books of 
the Constitutions. One would think that the man, after hav- [Hi] 
ing made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, had lost 
all shame too. For all the reformed divines agree in say 
ing, that those Constitutions are not the work of Clement, nor 
is it denied at this day by the more learned among the Ro 
man Catholics, indeed the facts of the case speak for them 
selves 6 . And who can endure a man, who, whilst boasting 
that he has brought out the very kernel 2 of ecclesiastical 2 nucleus, 
history, obtrudes such wares upon his reader ? Meanwhile 
most, if not all 3 , the passages, which he has adduced out of s pleraque 
the Constitutions, as making in favour of the Arians, can omnia - 
without difficulty be accounted for 4 , on the ground that they 4 ex cusari. 
are said by the author in reference to that pre-eminence 5 of 5 ^ ox ^. 
the Father, which He has as the fountain of Deity, and that he 
wished to distinguish the Son from the Father, in opposition 
to that heresy which Sabellius embraced ; as will at once be 
plain on examining the passages themselves. There is, indeed, 
one statement objected against the author of the Constitutions 
by Sandius, which admits of no defence ; it is to this effect, 
that "the Son of God was created out of 6 (or from) nothing, e ex (vei 
and once did not exist." Bat I do not remember ever hav- de ) nihil - 
ing read this in the books of the Constitutions ; nor do I think 

c [See, however, the passages cited (5t5a<nfaXfai)and rules (8iaT<|s)which 
by Grabe from Ep. i. 46, in his anno- apostolic men of that time used to issue, 
tations ad locum. B.] It is most clearly certain that these 
ri Enucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 67. Constitutions, which had been seriously 
e The eight books of the Constitu- corrupted by heretics in the time of 
tions, which were written at about the Epiphanius, are very different from 
same period as the Canons, (i. e. to- those which previously existed ; as 
wards the close of the second century,) might easily have happened in conse- 
appear to have been originally com- quence of additions, mutilations, and in- 
piled out of the various instructions terpolations. Cave in Clem BOWYER. 

112 Passages in the Apost. Const, opposed to Arianism. 




1 condito- 
rem et opi- 


rf unum 

4 petf ov. 

5 8o|oAo- 

that any such thing is any where to be found therein. At any 
rate the author expressly teaches the contrary in the forty- 
first chapter of book vii., which very chapter is enumerated 
by Sandius amongst those, in which [he says] Clement Arian- 
izes. For setting forth there the profession of faith which 
had to be made by the candidate for baptism, he thus explains 
the belief concerning God the Father f ; "I believe, and am 
baptized, into One Unbegotten, Only True God Almighty, the 
Father of Christ, the Creator and Maker l of all things." You 
see here that God is distinctly said to be the Father of Christ, 
not His Creator or Maker, whilst of all the creatures He is 
distinctly called the Creator and the Maker. Then, after 
wards, the author thus paraphrases the article on the only-be 
gotten Son of God g ; " And in the Lord Jesus Christ, His only- 
begotten Son, .... begotten, not created, by whom all things 
were made." Words, which by no clever charm 2 , (except 
such as would deserve to be laughed at, rather than re 
futed,) can be made to agree with the Arian doctrine. Again, 
in book vi. chap. 11, he teaches that the faith of the Apo 
stles was that by which we believe h , that " there is one God, 
the Father of one Son, not more ; of one Paraclete through 
Christ ; the Maker of all other orders ; one Creator 3 ; Maker, 
through Christ, of the various creatures." In this place, 
also, he clearly excepts the Holy Spirit from the class of 
things created by God. To these passages may be added 
the frequent occurrence, whenever this author recites the 
liturgy of the ancient Church, of this form of doxology ; 
"With whom 4 (that is, the Son) to Thee (God the Father) 
be glory, honour, praise, glorification 5 , and thanksgiving; 
and to the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever, Amen." It is so 
in book viii. chap. 38 ; whilst in the fifteenth chapter of the 
same book, near the end, the same doxology is expressed in 
these words j ; " To Thee (the Father) be glory, praise, majesty, 

Kal /JaTTTifouai els eva K\r\rov Sta XpiffTov TWV a\\<av ray- 
wov Q.XT]f)iv})v (bi> iravro- /j.aTwironrjT fii evaSf]/j.iovpy6v 8ia<f>6pov 
KpaTopa, riv rrarepa TOV XpHTTov, KTL- KTiafCDS Sia XpicrTov Troir)TT]v. [Ibid. 

Kal ti ri _. ...... ... r , , 

[a, Ti/i^j, alvos, 8o|o- 
Kal T$ ayicp Ylvev- 
eis TOVS aluvas, au.i\v. [Ibid. viii. 

[Apost. Const, vii. 42. p. 447.] 

K Kal fls Tbv K.vpiov irjo oD* T^V Xpt- 

(TTOV, TOV /J.OVOyet/ri O.VTOV VIOV, . . . 

yevvriQsvTa, ov KTio~6evra, 5i* ov TO. irav- 
ra eyevero, [/c.r.A. Ibid.] 


vi. 11. p. 383.] 
/j.f6 ov o~oi 

38. p. 503.] 

vlov TtaTepa, ov TC\fi6v<av evos irapa.- <rov 

, irpoaKvvf](ns Kal Tip o~< iratSl Irj- 
aov, T< Kvpiip fi(j.u>v t Kal 

The Father glorified ivith and through the Son. 113 

worship, and adoration ; also to Thy child Jesus, Thy Christ, BOOK n. 
our Lord, and God, and King; and to the Holy Ghost, CH P g IIL 
both now, and ever, and world without end. Amen." See 

also, chapp. 16, 18, 2022, 29, 39, 41, of the same book. [143] 
Now in this ascription of glory, the same honour, the same 
glory and majesty, is evidently given to the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost, conjointly. But 011 this point there 
is an excellent remark of the Pneumatomachi in Basil k ; 
" We maintain that connumeration 1 (to be reckoned together) 
is suitable to such as are equal in honour ; but subnumer- 
ation 2 (to be reckoned after) to such as differ so as to be 
inferior 3 ." Hence the Arians never willingly used this form 
of doxology, but changed the /*e<9 ov (with Whom), into 
Si ov, or e*> co (through Whom, or, in Whom), with the design, 
of course, of intimating, that in nature the Son is inferior to, 
and therefore alien from the Father 4 . On the other hand 6 , 4 adeoque 
several, even of the Catholics, prior to the Council of Nice, (as 
also the author of the Constitutions in other places,) em 
ployed the phrase Si? ov (through Whom), and others again 
combined the two Si ov and /*e0 ov; understanding, that is, 
that it is through the Son that the glory of the Father is 
manifested, and that all the glory of the Son redounds to the 
Father, as the fountain of deity : and that the Son, never 
theless, ought to be adored together with the Father, as a 
partaker of the same divine nature and majesty. To speak 
more plainly, the ancient Catholics, when they glorified the 
Father through the Son, meant to express the subordination 
of the Son, in that He is the Son, and the pre-eminence 6 of 6p atris 
the Father in that He is the Father ; and on the other hand, ^^ v - 
by worshipping the Son with the Father, theymeant to express 
His consubstantiality, and His subsistence 7 with the Father ? subsis- 
in the same divine essence and nature. That the Arians tentiam - 
however altogether disliked the expression fjued" ov, and ac- 
cordingly, whenever they were in power, changed that re 
ceived formula of doxology in the public Liturgies into Si 
ov, is testified by ecclesiastical history 1 . Nay, Philostorgius 

jv virapiO- 
fj.ari, vvv, Kal ad, Kal els rovs aluvas rSiv waiv. Lib. de Spirit., c. 1 7. [S 42. p. 


7] TOS onoTipois <t>a{j.ev See Socrates ii. 21. and Sozomen 

v awapiQ^ffiv Trpeircw ro7s 5e irpbs iii. 8 ; and Valesius notes on both. 



Antiquity of these Doxolor/ies. 

ON THE himself, the Arian historian, iii. 13, states that Flavian of 
BTAHTIA- Antioch, an upholder of the Nicene Creed, having collected 

MTY OF a multitude of monks, " first raised the acclamation, Glory 
- to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost ; for 
that of those before him some, indeed, said, Glory to the 
Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost ; (and that this 
was the form of acclamation most in use ;) but that others 
said, Glory to the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost." 
This assertion, however, is altogether false, that Flavian was 
the first to introduce into use in the Church the form of dox 
ology, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son/ (or, with 
52 the Son,) and to the Holy Ghost/ the expressions, through 
the Son/ or in the Son/ having alone been in use before him. 
For in the ancient formulae of prayers which obtained in the 
Church prior to [the time of] Flavian, and even of the 
Nicene Council, the same doxology was in use, as is evident 
from the Constitutions. We shall afterwards" shew, that 
the same doxology is found in the writings of certain of the 
ante-Nicene Fathers, and in particular of Clement of Alex 
andria (who moreover paraphrases that formula in such a 
way as no Arian could digest 1 ). Lastly, the fact that the 
words jjbe9 } ov (with W r hom), were approved and employed 
by writers even of the apostolic age, will appear presently, 
[145] when we come to treat of Polycarp. In the meantime, 
you may learn from this, how unpalatable the words ped 
ov, (with Whom,) arid the form, " Glory be to the Father, 
and to the Son," &c. were to the Arians. I return to San- 
dius, who attempts to prove, out of the books of the Recog 
nitions also, that Clement was an Arian. But that these 
Recognitions are the work of Clement, no one who is in 
his right mind will seriously affirm ; they have accordingly 
been disallowed and rejected , as spurious and certainly forged 

1 conca 

i, Ajct Trarpl, Kal 
vi(f> t Kal ayia) Tri/tv/uan. TUV yap irpb 
avrov, TOVS .\v, A<f|a -rrarpl 5t vtov eV 

\ov rr/c K(j>cavr](nv Trnro\deii/ robs Se, 
Ao|a irarpl eV vlco Kal ayiy irv^v^an. 
[Philost. E. H., iii. 13. p. 495.] 

" Cap. G. 4. 

The hooks (of the Recognitions) are 
spurious (pseudepigraphi) and apocry 

phal, composed in the second century 
by a learned and eloquent man, who 
was however more of a philosopher and 
philologist than a theologian, and by no 
means skilled in the invention and 
arrangement of fictitious narratives. 
Cotelerius, Judicium de libris Re- 
cogn. [Patr. Apost., torn. i. 490.] 

St. Poly carp. Futility of arguments from omissions. 115 
by most, if not all 1 , the learned, both of our own and BOOK n. 

HAP. 11 


the papal communion. And thus far concerning Clement of CHAP * ni * 

i plerisque 

7. I now proceed to PolycarpP. Of him Sandiusi only omnib us. 
observes in a summary way, that " In his Epistle to the POLYCARP - 
Philippians, he frequently distinguishes Christ from God." 
The author of the Irenicum, however, urges this at greater 
length, and wrests him to the support even of the Socinian 
heresy. He writes to this effect 1 "; "Nothing of his (Poly- 
carp s) writings has been left to us, except his Epistle to 
the Philippians, and a few fragments preserved by Eusebius. 
But the Epistle to the Philippians contains nothing whatever 
to prove the divinity of Christ ; nay, Christ is not only always 
distinguished from the Almighty, or supreme, God, (who is 
also called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,) but is con 
tinually introduced, (as in the previously-mentioned 2 Epistle 2 superior!. 
of Clement of Rome,) merely as a man, and as one who has [146] 
come in the flesh, having been constituted, that is, the ser 
vant 3 of all, and at length raised up [from the dead] and ex- 3 minister. 
alted by God, and Who [now] is our Lord and High-Priest for 
ever, in Whom therefore, all men ought to believe, &c." 
Let us, then, first consider about the Epistle of Polycarp; 
and to begin; What though we granted to our anonymous [ob 
jector], that that Epistle "contains nothing to prove the 
divinity of Christ ?" it certainly would not therefore by any 
means follow, that Polycarp did not acknowledge the divinity 
of Christ. For is it necessary that one who believes that 
Christ is God, should profess that belief of his as often as he 
writes any letter? Ridiculous ! How many lengthy epistles 
may you read of ecclesiastical writers, who from their hearts 
believed the divinity of the Son, in which notwithstanding 
you will not find even the least word 4 to prove the divinity of 4 ne ypb 
Christ. Take, for example, the epistle of Cyprian to Anto- ^ Uldem - 
nianus, the fifty-second in Pamelius edition; it is a pretty 
long one, yet Cyprian doth not make any express statement 
in it respecting Christ as God; nay, he throughout "dis 
tinguishes Christ from God." Suppose now, that this alone 

p Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle Polycarp. BOWYER. 
John, was appointed bishop of Smyrna q Enucl. Hist. Eccles., i. p. 75. 
by him, about the year 94. Cave in r [p. 28.] 

i 2 

1 1 6 Direct evidence of St. Poly carp s Faith in our Lord s 

ON TUB had been extant of all Cyprian s letters : might not the 
CONSUB- S p| r ft O f j-njrt most blessed martyr with justice complain 
LITY OF of very grave injury done to him, by the man who should 
^- thence conclude that Cyprian did not acknowledge the 
divinity of Christ? Most certainly he might. For from 
many other writings of the same Cyprian still extant, we 
gather assuredly that he most thoroughly held the divinity 
of Christ. So likewise of Polycarp ; Irenseus testifies (in an 
epistle to Florinus, in Eusebius Eccles. History, v. 20,) that 
beside his Epistle to the Philippians, he wrote others, both 
to the neighbouring Churches, and also to certain of the 
brethren, from which the purity of his doctrine might be 
gathered. What if in these he declared more explicitly 
[147] his faith in the divinity of Christ? Indeed Jerome actually 
enumerates Polycarp amongst the ancient and apostolic wri 
ters, who by their works refuted the heresy against the 
divinity of Christ, which Ebion was the first to maintain 
of the Jewish, and Theodotus of Byzantium of the Gentile 
Christians. His words, against Helvidius, are as follows 5 ; 
" Can I not bring forward against you the entire series of 
ancient authors, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenseus, Justin Martyr, 
with many other apostolic and eloquent men, who wrote 
volumes full of wisdom against Ebion and Theodotus of 
Byzantium (and Valentinus 1 ), who held these same opinions? 
If you had ever read these, you would be a wiser man/ 
And it is extremely probable, that out of the other epistles 
53 of Polycarp, now lost, were taken those five fragments by no 
means to be despised, which Feuardentius first published (at 
the end of his notes on Irenseus, 1. iii. c. 31.) from a MS. 
in very ancient characters ; as they are quoted in it by Vic 
tor, bishop of Capua, eleven hundred years ago. Now in 
the third of these fragments the following words of Polycarp 

Numquid non possum tibi totam p. 225.] 

veterum scriptorumseriemcommovere, * Marianus Victor observes that this 

Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, Jus- [i.e. the reference to Valentinus] is 

tinum Martyrem, multosque alios apo- wanting in most Copies ; indeed the 

stolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adver- thing speaks for itself, that the name 

sus Ebionem et Theodotum Byzanti- of Valentinus was inserted into the text 

num(etValentinum) haec eadem senti- by some sciolist; for it is plain, that 

entes plena sapientiae volumina con- the heresy of Ebion and Theodotus was 

scripserunt? quae si legisses aliquando, widely different from the views of Va- 

plus saperes. Chap. ix. [ 17. vol. ii. lentinus concerning Christ. 

Divinity ; intimations of it in his Epistle. 117 

occur u ; "John who was settled at Ephesus, where, being BOOK u. 
Gentiles, they 1 were ignorant of the law, began his Gospel 
with the cause of our redemption ; which cause is apparent 
from this, that God willed His own Son to become incar- x qui. 
nate for our salvation. Luke, on the other hand, commences 
with the priesthood of Zacharias, that by the miracle of his 
son s nativity, and by the office of so great a preacher, he [148] 
might manifest to the Gentiles the divinity of Christ." In 
this passage the very holy man most distinctly avows and ac 
knowledges a Son of God, who was such before He was made 
man, and who afterwards became incarnate, in other words, 
was made man, for the salvation of mankind, at the time 
and in the manner that God the Father willed ; and further 
he expressly teaches, that John meant to describe a Son of 
God of this kind, in the beginning of his Gospel. He affirms, 
moreover, that Luke s purpose also at the commencement of 
his Gospel was, to proclaim to the Gentiles, by the wonder 
ful birth of the forerunner of Christ, and by his preaching, 
the divinity of Christ Himself. 

8. But, secondly, there are some things even in Polycarp s 
Epistle to the Philippians which imply (and that not ob 
scurely) the divinity of Christ. Of this kind is that very 
passage referred to by the author of the Irenicum, the words 
of which in the Latin version (for the Greek of that part is not 
extant) are as follows x ; "The God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and the everlasting High-Priest Himself, the 
Son of God, Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth, 
and in all meekness and freedom from wrath, in patience also, 
and long-suffering, and endurance, and chastity, and grant 
unto you a lot and portion amongst His saints/ &c. In 
these words Polycarp invokes Christ, the Son of God, along 
with God the Father, as the Giver of grace in this life, and 
of glory in a future life. Now that an invocation of this 

u Joannes ad Ephesum constitutus, teler.] 

qui legem tanquam ex gentibusignora- x Deus autem et Pater Domini nos- 
bant, a causa nostrae redemptions evan- tri Jesu Christi, et ipse sempiternus 
geln sumpsit exordium; quae causa ex Pontifex, Dei Films Jesus Christus, 
eo apparet, quod Filium suum Deus aedificet vos in fide et veritate, et in 
pro nostra salute voluit incarnari. Lu- omni mansuetudine et sine iracundia, 
cas vero a Zachariae sacerdotio incipit, et in patientia, et longanimitate, et to 
ut ejus filu miraculo nativitatis, et tanti lerantia, et castitate ; et det vobis sor- 
praedicatoris officio, divinitatem Christi tern et partem inter sanctos suos, & c . 
gentibus declararet. [p. 205, ed. Co- Page 23. [p. 191.] 

118 Fragments of Poly carp preserved by Eusebius ,- 

THE kind is suited to God alone, and not befitting to any creature, 



CONSUR. (h owcver the Arians and the Socinians mav fret against 

- V " 


I.ITY OF it 1 ,) Holy Scripture, right reason, and the unanimous opi 
Tne_soN^ n - on of t ^ e anc i ent ca tholic doctors agree in teaching us. 
nian g t? n Especially clear?, again, are the words of Polycarp, con 
cerning Christ as the Overseer and the Judge of all men ; 
[149] "For we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and 
must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ and 
give account every one for himself. Thus then let us serve 
Him with fear and all reverence, as He hath Himself com 
manded, and the Apostles, who preached the gospel unto 
us, and the prophets, who foretold the coming of our Lord." 
In this passage Polycarp either is speaking concerning Christ 
alone, calling Him both God and Lord, (as indeed he seems 
to be speaking of a single Person,) or, at any rate, he joins 
with God the Father Christ His Son, as equally the uni 
versal Overseer, TTCLVT eTroTr-r^s, unto whose eyes all things 
are subjected : as also the universal Judge, Travro^LKaar^, 
at whose tribunal all men, without exception, will have 
to stand : and by this argument he exhorts the faithful 
to serve the same Lord Jesus with fear and all reverence. 
And the sense of this passage of Polycarp is made clear 
by a parallel passage of the blessed Ignatius, in his Epistle 
to the Ephesians, " There is nothing hidden from the Lord/ 
&c., which we adduced in the preceding chapter z . 

9. But let us at length pass to the fragments of Polycarp, 
which are preserved by Eusebius. Amongst them is espe 
cially memorable that prayer of Polycarp 3 , now on the 
point of suffering martyrdom, preserved in Eusebius Eccl. 
Hist. iv. 15; it concludes with this remarkable doxology b ; 
" Wherefore also for all things I praise Thee, I bless Thee, 
I glorify Thee, through the eternal High-Priest, Jesus Christ, 
[150] Thy beloved Son, through whom, unto Thee, with Himself, 

yap r&v rov Kvpiov Kal a He suffered A.D. 175. Cave. 

eou eo~fj.ei> o(pQa\fj.S)V, Ka\ Trdvras Sel BowYER. 

jrapaarTJvai rep firinari. rov Xpicrrov, Kal b 5ta rovro Kal Trepl irdvTVV^ffe^aivv, 

eicacrrov virep eavrov \6yov Sovvai. ov- (re evAoy>, <re 5o|aco Sia rov aifaviov 

rcas ovv 5ov\V(T(i}/j.V ai>T(S /xera (poftov apxiepe cos iTjcroG Xpitrrou, rov ayain]- 

Kal Trda-rjs cuAajSeias, KaG&s avrbs eVe- rov crov iraiSos 5t ov <roi aw avT$ eV 

TetAaro, Kal ol ^vayy^Kiffa^voi rijjLas Trvevu.ari ayioi 5o|a Kal vvv Kal eis rovs 

a.7r6(TroXoi, Kal ol irpo(priTai, ol TrpoKypv- p.e\\nvras alwvas Ap-fji . [Euseb. E. 

lathes rrjf tXtvuiv rov Kvpiov T^M. H., iv. 15, Mart. Polyc., H. Patr. 

6. p. 188.] A p. ii. 201.] 
[c. ii., 6. p. 95.] 

His prayer before death ; its genuineness. 119 

in the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and for ever. Amen." 
You perceive that here God the Father is glorified not only 
through, but also together with the Son, one and the same POLYCARP. 
glory being attributed to them both "in the Holy Ghost." 
And I have already in this chapter in part shewn, how alto 
gether opposed is this form of doxology to the heresy of those 
who deny the true divinity of Christ. Indeed Petavius him 
self had alleged this passage, in proof of the doctrine of the 
most holy Trinity, But what answer does the author of the 
Irenicum make to him? "With respect," he says c , "to the 
short prayer l ascribed to Polycarp, and which Petavius l precati- 
adduces in confirmation of his [opinion concerning the] unculum> 
Trinity 2 , it is more to the prejudice than to the support of 2 proTrini- 
his cause : inasmuch as in it he manifestly calls the Father 
of Jesus Christ alone the true God and Creator of all things, tione. 
and invokes Him through the Son, whom he merely names 
High-Priest. I ask, therefore, what does this mode of speech 
indicate, nay, what can it indicate, other than that Polycarp 
held and regarded (as in his Epistle also) the Father alone 54 
to be the supreme God ?" In these words, I think, that the 
man s craft is worthy to be noted first, in that he wishes to 
suggest to his reader a suspicion that this prayer of Polycarp 
is not really his, but only "ascribed" to him. Yet certainly 
there is scarcely any fragment of primitive antiquity, pre 
served by Eusebius, which is worthy of more credit than this 
last prayer of the dying Polycarp. It is extracted from an 
Epistle written by the brethren of Smyrna, who had been 
eye-witnesses of the suffering of the blessed Polycarp, to the 
Church at Philomelium, on their request to be put in posses- [151] 
sion of all the particulars of the martyrdom of that most holy 
man. Of this Epistle no man of learning up to this time has 
entertained a doubt, nor is it possible for any one hereafter 
to do so with any reason, inasmuch as even before Eusebius 
time it was read among the public acts of the martyrs, and 
breathes throughout the spirit of the first Christians, that is, 
their purity of doctrine, their piety and their simplicity. Re 
specting these acts of Polycarp and of the martyrs of Gaul, 
hear the judgment of the great Joseph Scaliger d ; " So af 
fected," he says, " is the mind of the pious reader by their 

c Page 29. d Animadvers. in Eusebii Cliron. num. 2183. 

120 In what sense the Father alone is the supreme God. 



1 conscien- 

tiae modo. 

plius meus. 

3 cramben 
decies re- 

4 aliqno 

5 a seipso. 



perusal, as never to leave them with feelings of satiety ; and 
that this is indeed the case, every one may perceive in pro 
portion to his intelligence and his measure of inward sense 1 . 
For my own part, I certainly have never met with any thing 
in ecclesiastical history, from the reading of which I rise 
more moved, even to such an extent as to seem to be no 
longer master of myself 2 ." 

10. But this most illustrious monument of the faith of 
Polycarp has greatly vexed the author of the Irenicum, not 
withstanding his pretences to the contrary. I scarcely know 
how he had the effrontery to assert that this prayer " told 
more against than in favour of Petavius," when he argued 
from it in defence of [the doctrine of] the most sacred 
Trinity. Nay, he says it is manifest that Polycarp in this 
prayer calls the Father of Jesus Christ alone the true God 
and Creator of all things; and invokes Him through the 
Son, calling the latter only High-Priest ; and, in fact, he so 
speaks as that he seems to have acknowledged the Father 
only to be the supreme God. But here the heretic only 
serves up to our disgust, for the tenth time, the self-same 
dish 3 . We confess, we freely confess, that the Father alone 
is, in one point of view 4 , the supreme God; I mean, in that 
He Himself is (as Athanasius expresses it) " the fountain of 
Deity," (77-777*7 OeoTrjTos,) that is, He alone is God of Him 
self 5 , from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost receive their 
Godhead; and on this account also it is, that the appella 
tion of "the true God" is frequently assigned, in a peculiar 
sense 6 , to the Father, both in the Holy Scriptures and in the 
writings of the ancients, especially when the divine Persons 
are mentioned together. Notwithstanding, at the same time 
we, with the fathers of Nice, do also firmly maintain that 
the Son is " Light of Light, God of God," and consequently 
" very God of very God." And the anonymous author might 
on like ground have alleged their confession of faith in op 
position to the doctrine concerning the divinity of the Son 
and concerning the most holy Trinity; for thus do they 
begin their creed ; " We believe in one God, the Father Al 
mighty, the Maker of all things, visible and invisible." It 
is, however, worth while here to put before the reader the 
words of Polycarp in the opening of his prayer, which ap- 

Poly carp s opening words indicate the Divinity of the Son. 121 

peared to the author of the Irenicum to be so very favourable BOOK n. 
to his heresy: they are as follows 6 ; " [O Lord God,] the 9^/0" 
Father of Thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through P^YCARP 
whom we have received the knowledge of Thee; God of 
angels, and powers, and of the whole creation," &c. Now I 
affirm that utter darkness must envelope the mind of that 
man who does not perceive that in these words the death 
blow is struck at Socinianism, and at Arianism too. For 
Polycarp here teaches that God is the Father of His blessed 
Son, but the God (that is, the Creator) of angels, and 
powers, and of the whole creation ; so as thereby most clearly 
to distinguish and most widely to separate the blessed Son 
of God from angels, and powers, and the whole order of 
created beings ; and, consequently, to take Him out of the 
class 1 of creatures, and to teach that God is in quite a differ- l creatura- 
ent relation 2 to His blessed Son, from that in which He a r " m ^" su> 
stands to the angels and the host of other created beings. 
Added to this, the epithet ev^oyrjrbf, (blessed,) applied by 
Polycarp in this passage to the Son of God, was by the [153] 
ancient Jews employed in a peculiar application 3 in the cele- 3p r0 p r i e . 
bration of the divine name ; for (as the learned are well 
aware) Dt?n "]i"a> "blessed be the Name," was the accus 
tomed formulary in their doxologies. And they have been 
imitated by the writers of the New Testament, whenever 
they wished to speak in terms of special reverence of the 
divine Persons, and to celebrate more clearly their supreme 
glory and majesty. Compare Mark xiv. 61; Luke i. 68; 
Rom. i. 25 ; ix. 5 ; 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Ephes. i. 3 ; ] Pet. i. 3, 
with Genesis ix. 26 ; xiv. 20 ; xxiv. 27, &c. That is untrue, 
therefore, which the anonymous author asserts, that Poly 
carp here gives merely the appellation of High-Priest to 
Christ, and therefore it is to no purpose, that he after 
wards observes, that the appellation of High-Priest, which is 
applied to Christ, denotes that He is man. For suppose it 
be so, what will follow ? that Christ is man as well 4 [as 4 etiam ho- 
God], which we likewise firmly believe. Therefore, supposing m 
that the title of dp^epevs, (High-Priest,) implies that He is 

.] 6 rov ayairr]TOv ffiv el\-f]tpau.v 6 0ebs ayy\cav KO.\ 5u- 
at zvAoyijTOv TrcuSos aov \r\ffov Xpi- j/a,uea>i/ feat Tracnjs rrjs KTiffecas /c.r.A. 
ffrov iraryp, Si ou rr}v Trepl ere eiriyvw- [ 14. p. 200.] 

12.2 The doxology in Polycarp s prayer evidences His Divinity. 

ON THE Son of man., yet at any rate the designation of 6 irals Oeov, 
SA N NTI B A~- aryaTrqTos, 6 euXoy^ro*, " the Son of God, the beloved, the 
LITY OF blessed," most certainly sounds like something more than 
man ; especially when such a description of the beloved and 
blessed Son of God is added, as puts that Son into a condi 
tion separate from and above that of creatures. 
55 11. But the charge which the heretic f brings against Pe- 

ifestivum. tavius is quite amusing 1 , namely, that "The prayer of Poly- 
carp, as it is adduced by him, is very different from that 
which Scultetus brings forward in his Medulla Theologian 
Patrum, xi. 1. A grave charge indeed ! As if Petavius 
had not done right in giving the prayer in the precise 
words in which it was reported by the brethren of Smyrna 
in their letter extant in Eusebius ! What will you say of the 

2 Quid, fact that 2 Scultetus in the alleged passage does not recite 
quod - the very words of Polycarp s prayer, but only summarily 

gives the sense of it ? From this, however, and many other 
indications, you will be right in conjecturing that this anony 
mous writer, for the most part, did not derive the ancient 
[154] testimonies, which he has heaped together in his Irenicum, 
by his own industry from the original sources, but tran 
scribed them into his own book from Scultetus, Petavius, 

3 bipe- and others. So that of all creatures 3 he was the most unfit 1 

to undertake "to lay before the Christian world, more clearly 
than had ever been done before, the true monuments of pri 
mitive antiquity and of the faith of the first Christians ;" 
which he most foolishly boasts of having done in the impos- 
s P iendido. ing 5 title which he prefixes to the third section of his Norma 
ReconciliatrixZ, his rule of reconciliation, as he calls it. 

12. But let us now, at last, consider what may be gathered 
from the doxology with which Polycarp s prayer concludes, in 
confirmation of the Godhead of the Son,, and therefore of the 
consubstantiality of the Trinity. We maintain, then, that the 
embracing of the Three in the same formula and participa 
tion of glory, indicates unity of nature and of Godhead, and 
in that respect the equality of the Persons. For most truly 
does Athanasius say, in his third oration against the Arians h , 

f Irenic., p. 30. rbv KT O-TTJV ; fj 5ta TI rJ) 7re7ro7? l ueVoi 

g Irenic., p. 13. ffwapiQ^rat T$ iro iricra.v Ti [Orat. ii. 

h iroia yap Koivccvia T< KTtV/, .aTt trpos p. 41. vol. i. p. 508.] 

The joining the Son with the Father implies Their equality . 123 

in treating of the form of Baptism : " For what fellowship is BOOK n. 
there between the creature and the Creator ? or wherefore H io^-i3* 
is that which is made classed 1 with the Maker ?" Well, too, POLYCARP. 
is it said by Gregory Nazianzen, in his thirteenth Oration 1 ; <rwapie- 
"The Trinity is really a Trinity 2 , my brethren ; a Trinity f^ 
however is not a numbering up of things unequal; else 
what hinders but that we should give It the name 3 of de- 3 
cade, century, or myriad, if taken together with so many? 
for there are many things that may be counted, and more 
than these ; but it is a taking together 4 of things equal, 4 
and of the same honour/ And indeed, if in the Christians [155] 
doxologies the Son and Holy Ghost were joined unto God 
the Father, not as of one substance with Him, but only as 
created beings of a higher class, why should not other 
superior creatures also be numbered together with Them, 
in their own order, in the same [doxologies] ? Why should 
we not say, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to 
the Holy Ghost, and to Michael, and to the rest of the 
archangels and angels? And so, forsooth, that blasphem 
ous formula of the papists would at last have to be ac 
counted legitimate, Praise be to God and to the Virgin 
Mother of God. But far otherwise was it that the dis 
ciples of the Apostles were taught. 

13. Let us consider what the author of the Irenicum 
alleges in reply to these considerations. He first takes 
occasion for cavil from the circumstance that Polycarp in this 
formula does not say, " with the Holy Ghost/ or " and to the 
Holy Ghost," but "in the Holy Ghost." "Nay but," he 
says, " the expression in the Holy Ghost does not in itself 6 5 adhuc. 
imply an association into the same fellowship of glory. 
For in Eph. vi. 18, we are taught to pray in the Spirit, 
without any intimation of equality between the Spirit and 
the Father." But what is trifling in a grave matter and 
openly playing the sophist, if this be not ? By the phrase 
"in the spirit," in the Epistle to the Ephesians, is not 
meant the Holy Ghost, but our own spirit, assisted in- 

f] rpias, ldff\<j>oi "KTUV Kal 6/j.ori/j.uv 

Tpias Se ow Trpay^drwv aviffoov bvapiO- T Tjs Trposrjyopias ra rjfcava e/c 

^Tjo-is T) T L Kw\vet Kal 5e/ca5a, Kal e/ca- Kal OVK ways (TKeSaffBrivai api6/ui a Ai/o- 

TOj/raSa, Kal yuvpiaSa ivopdfav, ,ueTa jieVy TO. ^ \u6fi.tva.. ] Page 211. ed. 

TOVOVTWV avvriQ^vr]v\ TroAAa 70^ TO. Par. 1630. [Orat. xxiii. 10. p. 431.] 
\pl9u.ov(JLfva, Kal vrAeuw TOUTOJI/ aAA 

1 homun- 


124 Evidence from the language of the Christians of Smyrna. 

deed by the grace of the Holy Ghost. So that to "pray 
in the spirit," is the same as the expression "in your 
heart," that is, with sincere affection of heart, in chap. v. 
ver. 19. of the same Epistle. But this very thing induces 
me to suspect that this anonymous author belongs to the 
number of the Pneumatomachi, [fighters against the Spirit,] 
who deny not only the divinity, but also the personality, as 
they express it, of the Holy Ghost. Yet whatever this weak 
man 1 , who is but of yesterday, may think about the Holy 
Ghost, it is certain that blessed Polycarp, and the Catho 
lics his contemporaries, believed that the Holy Ghost is a 
Person distinct from the Father and the Son, and at the 
same time divine, that is to say, a partaker of the same 
majesty, dominion, and honour with the Father and the Son. 
Here is a testimony of this, which is above all exception, 
the confession of the brethren of Smyrna, who at any rate 
knew very well the mind both of Polycarp and of the 
Catholic Church of that time. For thus do they con 
clude their letter respecting the martyrdom of Polycarp j : 
" Our prayer for you, brethren, is that ye may be strong, 
walking in the word of Jesus Christ, which is according to 
His gospel ; with whom be glory and honour to God both 
Father and Holy Ghost, for the salvation of the elect saints 2 ." 
In these words divine glory and honour is expressly attri 
buted to the Holy Ghost, together with the Father and the 
Son; nor is the Son more clearly distinguished from the 
Father than the Holy Ghost is from both. Altogether 
parallel to this is the doxology of the companions of Igna 
tius, towards the conclusion of the Acts of the Martyrdom of 
that saint k : " Glorifying in his (Ignatius ) venerable and 
sacred memory, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and 
with whom to the Father be glory and power, with the Holy 

per quern et cum quo Patri gloria et 
potentia cum Spiritu Sancto in sancta 
ecclesiainsiBCula sasculorum. Amen." 
The concluding words of the Greek 
original, vfj-vovvres rbv eoi/, rbz/ 5o- 
rripa T&V ayaOwv, Kal /j.a.Kapi(ravTS rbv 
ayiov . . . . eV XpiaTc? IrjcroC T< Kvpiy 
tl/uLoov, St ov Koi /u,e0 ov r<f trarpl T] 5ort 
Kal rb Kpdros avv T(? a^i y Tr^eu^an els 
alwvas. a^v. 7. Patr. Ap. ii. 161.] 

eppaxrOai v/ 

ixovvTas TIM Kara rb fvayy\Lov \6- 
\T]<JOV Xpia-Tov |U0 ov 5o|a TO? 
teal iraTpl Kal ayicf IT veil/mart, firl 
rrj rwv ayiow e/cAeKTaJ*/. /c.r.A. 
See Valesius notes on Euseb., p. 73. 
[p. 171.] 

k [The Latin of this passage given 
by Bp. Bull is, " Glorificantes in ipsius 
(Ignatii) venerabili et sancta memoria 
Doiniuum nostrum Jesum Christum : 

Force of the words " with the Holy Ghost" in the Doxology. 125 

Ghost, in the holy Church, for ever and ever. Amen." BOOK n. 
Wherein also you will observe by the way that both phrases C HA 3 P 
"through whom" and "with whom" are employed respect- POLYCARP. 
ing the Son, just as in the prayer of Polycarp ; the reason of 56 
which I have mentioned above. However, it appears to me 
that the ancients in their doxologies used not only the forms 
"with the Holy Ghost," or "and to the Holy Ghost," but also 
sometimes "in the Holy Ghost," for the very purpose of 
signifying that the Holy Ghost, insomuch as He proceedeth 1 [157] 
from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through l quatenus 
the Son, constitutes the communion and unity of them both; F 
and thus is as it were the bond of the most holy Trinity, as 
indeed He is expressly called by some of the ancients 1 . This 
is more distinctly expressed in that very ancient formula : 
" Glory be to the Father and to the Son in the unity of the 
Holy Ghost." Accordingly a very early writer, Athenago- 
ras, (in his m Apology 2 for the Christians,) calls the Father 2 legatio. 
and the Son one evorijTi Tlvevfjia-ros, " by the unity of the 
Spirit." Synesius, in his hymns, elegantly expresses this 
mystery in more than one passage; for instance, in his 
third hymn, he thus addresses the Holy Ghost : 

"Opos el (ftvcrewv, 

Thou art the boundary of the natures ; 

Tas riKTOicra?, 

Of the begetting [nature,] 

T7" \ I 

j\.ai TLKTOfjbevaSj 
Arid of the begotten. 

and in his fourth hymn after celebrating the praises of God 
the Father and the Son, he proceeds to sing : 

Meadrav ap^av, 
The intervening principle ; 
Ay Lav irvoiav, 
The Holy Spirit; 
Kevrpov yeverov, 
Centre of the Father, 
Kevrpov Se Kopov, 
And centre of the Son. 

14 I return, however, to the author of the Irenicum, who 

1 See Petav. de Trin. vii. 12. 8. 

P. 10. [ 10. p. 287. B. The passage is quoted at length, ii. 4. 9-] 

126 Divine worship offered to Christ : not as to a glorified man, 

thus proceeds with his cavils : " Besides, the earlier writers, 
A ~_ when they praised the Son together with the Father and the 
LITY OF Holy Ghost, nevertheless did not (as is now being fully shewn 
in this place, and will afterwards be shewn in the case of Justin 
Martyr and others) either lay down, or believe, that either the 
Son or the Holy Ghost is equal with the Father: nay, they 
did not even venture to designate the Holy Ghost, God." My 
answer is this ; What these earlier writers thought concern 
ing the equality of the Persons, (I mean of the Father and of 

[158] the Son,) we shall shew at length in our fourth book; where 
it will be made clear, that those earlier writers laid down no 
other inequality between the Persons of the Father and of the 
Son, than was recognised by the fathers who flourished after 
the council of Nice, by Catholics of the present day, and fur 
ther, by the very schoolmen themselves. Meanwhile, this is 
certain, that the fathers of the first three centuries, without 
exception, taught, that the Son is of the same nature with the 
Father, and therefore is very God; and that it was under no 
other conception [of Him] that they glorified Him together 
with God the Father. We have already proved this in the 
case of the author of the Epistle attributed to Barnabas, of 
Hernias, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome ; we are now shew 
ing the same respecting Polycarp, and, finally, shall shew it 
of Justin Martyr and all the other fathers who preceded the 
council of Nice, one by one, in the course of this book. With 
respect to the Holy Ghost, we shall in this work incidentally 
shew that the same earlier fathers confessed His consub- 
stantiality also, and by consequence, His divinity ; nay, that 
by some of them the Holy Ghost is expressly called God. 

15. At last the heretic essays to explain how it is that we 
are bound to offer divine worship to Christ, notwithstanding 
that He is in His own nature a mere man. " In truth," he 
says, "both angels and men are bound to adore the man 

juxtim Christ, and to worship and to glorify Him with and next to 1 
God, according to the divine prediction, Jer. xxx. 9; Ezek. 
xxxiv. 23, 24, yet only as the servant and the ambassador of 
2 Domi- God, and made Lord 2 . Compare Phil. ii. 9 11 ; Acts ii. 36." 
To which I reply ; Christ is proposed for our worship in the 
Scriptures, not only as the servant and ambassador of God, 
who afterwards was made Lord, but as the Son of God, begot 
ten of the Father before the worlds, who out of His infinite 



but as to one to whom glory was due as God. ] 27 

love to the human race, having taken upon Himself that office BOOK IT. 
of ambassador to man, earned for Himself, as it were by a new \^ 15> * 
title, that divine honour should be paid to Him by men ; in POLYCAUP. 
other words, by a new and amazing act of kindness He bound [159] 
men to worship and to serve Him. At any rate, in that pas 
sage to the Philippians, (which the anonymous author and 
his crew 1 especially put forward 2 ,) it is shewn that He, who ^regales, 
after His death is declared to have been very highly exalted 2 venditaut. 
by God, did also before He assumed the form of a servant, 
that is, (as Paul interprets himself,) before He was made man, 
exist in the form of God, and was equal with God. The in 
terpretations by which both Arians and Socinians endeavour 
to elude the force of that passage are manifestly absurd, as 
any one will easily perceive who carefully weighs the context 
of the whole passage. So also in the Epistle to the He 
brews i. 2, 3, He, who, after " He had by Himself purged our 
sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty in the highest," 
the same is declared to be the Son of God, " through whom the 
worlds were made, and the brightness of the Father s glory, 
upholding all things by the word of His power." We do not, 
however, deny that the human nature of Christ, so far 
forth as it was capable 3 , came into a participation of glory 3 pro suo 
and honour with the Divine Person of the Son of God. 2 
Certainly 4 this is what Paul plainly teaches as does the 4 scilicet, 
author of the Epistle, called that of Barnabas, when he says, 
that Christ willed " the vessel of His spirit to be glorified," 
as we have observed already". And Hennas means no other 
when (in the passage which we also quoted above ) he says, 57 
that " the servant," that is, the man Christ, " by reason of 
the good service which He had performed, was made co-heir 
with the Son of God." This passage of Hernias also com 
pletely overthrows the notion of the anonymous writer. For 
in it there is made a most manifest distinction between 
that divine honour which Christ, as Son of God, (that is, 
according to Hermas own interpretation,) existing before all 
creatures, had previously with the Father, and that honour 
which was given to Christ, the servant, that is, the man " who [160] 
became obedient to death, even the death of the cross," as 
a reward after His death. Meanwhile the human nature of 
Christ, being exalted after death, has become a partaker of 

Chap. 2. 3. of this book, p. 91 . [Ibid. p. 90.] 

128 Christ s human nature glorified by union with the Divine. 

ON THE the divine dominion and honour, not of itself 1 , but by reason 
S C TA N NTIA"- of the person of the Word, by which it is sustained, and to 

LITYOP w hich it is united; so that that honour properly has its 
npaT" 1 " object in the person and not in the nature 2 ; and accord- 
2 in perso- ingly it is plain, that when the manhood of Christ is wor- 
nSnefur" shipped, tne creature is not in such wise worshipped, but 
non in that the act [of worship] properly tends to the Creator 3 , Who 
naturam. ^ i i ne d a created nature unto Himself in unity of person. 

A tendat in > , 

Crtatorem. This subject is well explained by the truly great Athanasms, 
in an Epistle to the Bishop Adelphius, against the Arians, 
in these words : "It is not a creature that we worship, 
God forbid ! for to the heathen and the Arians does such 
error belong ; but it is the Lord of the creation, incarnate, 
the Word of God, whom we worship ; for although the flesh 
taken by itself is a portion of created things, yet it has been 
made the body of God. And neither do we worship such 
a body as this by itself parting it from the Word, nor 
wishing to worship the Word do we separate it from the 
VaKpy- flesh 4 ; but knowing, as we said before, what is written, the 
VOfifV Word was made flesh/ Him we acknowledge to be God, 
even when He has come to be in the flesh." And afterwards 
in the same Epistle? he says, " Let them," that is, let the 
Arians, " know, that when we worship the Lord in the flesh, 
we do not worship 5 a creature?, but the Creator, who hath 
)0 ~ clothed Himself in the created body." Lastly, he concludes 
his epistle with these words q , which are especially worthy of 
being observed : " The faith of the Catholic Church knoweth 
the Word of God as Maker and Creator of all things; and we 
know that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
with God/ and Him, having become man also for our salva 
tion, do we worship : not as if He had come to be in the body 

ovKTiff/,fJ. ; f]yVoiTO. P yivwaKfTuaav 6ri Tbv^Kvptov eV 

Kuv yap Kal Apejcu/ttJ/ r] TOICWTTJ ffapKl irpotTKvvovvTfS ov KTiff^aTi irpo- 

ir\dt>r) aAAa rbv Kvpiov TTJS KTiVecos <TKVVOV^V, a\\a rbv KTiaTt]V eVSutra^e- 

o-apKa>0eWa rbj> TOV eov \6yov irpoffKv- vov rb KTiarbv au^a. Pp. 161, 162. [p. 

vovpev. el yap /cal rj <rap| avrti naff eau- 916. This (jcrfcrjua-n) is the reading of 

T^V fji-fpos eVrl TWV KTto /xoTWJ , oAAa the Benedictine editor even, following 

0eoO yeyove (Tupa 1 Kal ovre rb TOLOV- all others : hut it should be corrected 

TOV ffu>/j.a Ka6 eaurb Siaipowres airb TOV to /mo^a TI. B.] 

\6yov irpoaKvi>ov/JLev, ovre T^V \6yov 1 r/ TT KTTIS TTJS KaOoXiK^s KK\w^s 

jrpoffKvv^ffai 6e\oi>TS /j.aKpvvo/J.ev aurbj/ KTiffT^v oT5e TCIVTOV Oeou \6yov Kal 5jj- 

airb T^S ffapKos a\\ etS^res, KaOa fjLiovpybv TU>V a-rravTW Kal o/fSa^uev OTI 

Trpoeiironev, ri, 6 \6yos ffap e-yeVero, 4v apxfj /*ev fa 6 \6yos, Kal^ 6 \6yos $v 

TOVTOV Kal ev ffapKl yev6p.tvov tviyivt/a- -rrpbs riv e6v. yeripevovSe avTbv Kal 

ffKOfjifv e6v. Tom. i. p. 157. [vol. i. avQpwirov 5ia T)}V rj^erepai ffw-r-ripiav 

p. 912. 3.] irpofficvvwpfv, ou^ ^s laov eVIfo-qj yei>6- 

v aLV 

Glory ascribed to Christ, as in Himself the Son of God. 1 29 

as one of two equal things may be in another 1 , but as a Master BOOK n. 
having taken to Himself the form of a servant, and as Maker g"^ 1$ 
and Creator, having come to be in a creature, that in it POLYCARP> 
having set all things free, He might bring near 2 the world J ov x y & s 
unto the Father, and make at peace all things, both those ^^7 
that are in heaven and those that are on earth. For thus do v <r&na*i. 
we both acknowledge His Godhead which He has from the 
Father, and we worship His presence in the flesh, even though 
the Arian madmen burst with rage 3 . 

16. I return to Polycarp and the brethren of Smyrna. It 
is evident that they glorified Christ together with God the 
Father, not as a servant who afterwards was made Lord, but [162] 
as the " beloved and blessed Son," the only-begotten of the 
Father ; as will easily be seen by any one who reads the Epi 
stle of the Smyrneans. And that by these titles the divine na 
ture, glory, and majesty of the Son of God are expressed, we 
have already shewn in part from the consent of the ancient 
Church, and shall elsewhere demonstrate more fully. But 
the Smyrneans also, in assigning a reason, why, at the same 
time that they adored 4 Christ, a man, and that crucified, 4 adora- 
they yet did not worship 5 the martyrs, the followers of the suf- 5 r 
ferings of Christ, thus speak 7 distinctly concerning Christ 
" For Him indeed we worship as being the Son of God," passiorem. 
(not as a mere man ;) presently after, respecting the martyrs a 
they add, (and O that the papists would mark their words,) 
"The martyrs however we love, as is their due 8 , as disci- 
pies and followers 9 of the Lord, for their affection 10 to their 9 
own King and Master, an affection which cannot be sur- 10 
passed." Besides, these same Smyrneans, as we have seen, 
ascribe divine honour unto the Holy Ghost also, together with 
God the Father. But, I ask, on what ground ? Is it as having 
been made Lord ? Let the author of the Irenicum tell us, when 
and how the Holy Ghost from being a servant was made Lord 9 


p.evov T< o-c^cm, a\\ us ^<nr6ri]v irpofT- ffiav irpoarKvvovfj.ev, K&V Apeio/mavlrai 

\aft6rra ^rfy rov Sov\ov fj-op^rjv, K al $iappr)yvvca<riv eavrovs. pp. 161, J62. 

tinfj-iovpyov Kal KTiVrrji/ ev Kriar^an ye- [p. 916.] 

vfoevov Lv eV at>T< ra irdvra. e Aeufle- s r0 v TOV ^ v yty v fo y &, Ta T0 0eo Q 

pcaffas rbv K6fffj.ou Trpoaa.ya.yrt r$ Tlarpl, irpoffKvvovfiev. . . . robs 8e pdprvpas us 

Kal eiprjitoiToirivr) ra irdvTa, ra eV ovpa- /ia^ras Kal fj.i/j.r)ras rov Kvpiov a.yairS>- 

j/ots Kal T& M rrjsyfjs. oSroo yap Kal ^v a^ eos, eVewa ewoias avvirep^rou 

Tfv irarpiK^v avrov flerfr^TO e-rnyi^- rrjs els rbv t$iov (3a<ri\ea Kal 8i5a<r/ca- 

^ KUI rty evvapKov avrov irapov- \ov. [ 17. Patr. Ap. ii. 202.] 


130 Glory ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as in Himself God ; 

ON THE Or is it, as being a created spirit, more excellent than th e 

STABTIA- other spirits, or angels ? But all admit that divine worship is 

LITY OF not d ue to any created being, per se } be he never so exalted . 


Besides, the sacred Scriptures every where* most clearly 
teach, that the Holy Ghost subsists in God Himself, and that 
His mind and all His secret things are intimately known 
and perceived by Him, that He is every where present, &c. ; 
[163] nor have they any where delivered one iota to lead you 
to suspect that He is placed in the rank of created beings. 
Hence the greatest and more sagacious portion of those who 

1 Pneuma- contend against the Holy Spirit 1 have at all times thought 

rum aCh " it better roundly to deny the personality itself of the Holy 
58 Ghost, and to assert that He is nothing else than the in- 

2 virtutem. fluence 2 and power of God the Father Himself, and not 
distinguished from Him, than to affirm that He is a crea 
ture, against so many and such clear testimonies of Scrip 
ture. But they also are as nothing: for in the Scriptures 
the Holy Ghost is not less clearly distinguished from the 
Father than is the Son Himself, (an assertion which, if that 
were the matter in hand, might very easily be proved ;) and 
the whole Catholic Church has ever believed and taught that 
the Holy Ghost is a person distinct from the Father. It re 
mains, therefore, that we confess that the ancient Christians 
worshipped the Holy Ghost under this conception, that^He is 
the Spirit of God, subsisting in God Himself, and conse- 

3 persona, quently Himself God; but yet personally 3 distinct from God, 
whose Spirit He is. Now if this be true, as indeed it is most 
true, it will follow that these same ancients either worshipped 

4 natura the Son as being in His nature God 4 , or regarded Him as 

Deum. inferior to the Holy Ghost; for, without doubt, it is a greater 
prerogative of honour to be worshipped as being in nature 
God, than as one that has been made God and Lord. But 
that the Son is inferior to the Holy Ghost was never dreamt 

5 scilicet, of amongst Catholics ; seeing that 5 in the Scriptures the Holy 
Ghost is said to be sent by the Son, and to have received from 
ah Him what He hath of His own 6 ; and in all the doxologies of 


Filk> m ^ e anc i en ^ s ; wherein the divine Persons are enumerated in 
their order, the Son has assigned to Him the second, (Seure- 

1 See especially 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. 

It follows from this that the Son is God, a fortiori. 131 

pav,) whilst the Holy Ghost has the third place or rank, BOOK ir. 
(Tpiryv xfipav TI rd%iv,} to use the words of Justin u . j" r * 

17. This [last consideration] is indeed a most irrefragable POLYCARP. 
argument for the divinity of Christ; and so the ancients 
judged. For thus Novatian, or the author of the Book on 
the Trinity amongst the works of Tertullian, writes, chap. [164] 
24 v. jf Christ be only man, how is it that He says that 
the Comforter shall take of His 1 what He is about to de-idesuo. 
clare 2 [unto men x ] ? For the Comforter does not receive 2< i uae nuu - 
any thing from man, but [rather] the Comforter communi- s it. 
cates knowledge to man ; neither does the Comforter learn 
from man the things that shall come to pass, but [rather] 
the Comforter instructs man respecting what shall come to 
pass. It follows, therefore, either that the Comforter did not 
receive from Christ, a [mere] man, what He has to declare, 
since it will never be in the power of man to give any thing 
to the Comforter, from whom it behoves man himself to re 
ceive, and [in that case] Christ in this passage misleads and 
deceives by saying that the Comforter shall receive from 
Him, a [mere] man, what He has to declare ; or [this is the 
alternative, that] He does not mislead us, (as neither indeed 
does He deceive us,) and the Comforter did receive from 
Christ that which He has to declare. But if [it be so, that] 
He did receive from Christ what He has to declare, then it 
follows at once that Christ is greater than the Comforter, 
since the Comforter would not receive from Christ if He 
were not less than Christ : but the Comforter [being] less 
than Christ, does from this very fact prove Christ also to be 
God, from whom He received what He declares. So THAT IT 


H [Apol. i. 16. pp. 60, 61.] sicut nee fallit, et accepit Paracletus 

v Si homo tantummodo Christus, a Christo, quae nuntiet. Sedsia Christo 

quomodo Paracletum dicit de suo esse accepit quae nuntiet, major ergo jam 

sumpturum, quae nuntiaturus sit ? ne- Paracleto Christus est; quoniam nee 

que enim Paracletus ab homine quic- Paracletus a Christo acciperet,nisi mi- 

quam accipit, sed homini scientiam nor Christo esset ; minor autem Christo 

Paracletus porrigit; nee futura ab ho- Paracletus, Christum etiam Deum esse 

mine Paracletus discit, sed de futuris hoc ipso probat, a quo accepit quae nun - 

hominem Paracletus instruit Ergo tiat. UT TESTIMONIUM CHRISTI DI- 

aut non accepit Paracletus a Christo VINITATIS GRANDE SIT, dum minor 

homine quod nuntiet, quoniam Para- Christo Paracletus repertus ab illo su- 

cleto homo nihil poterit dare, a quo mit quae caeteris tradit [Pag. 722.] 
ipse homo debet accipere, et fallit m * [John xvi. 14. etc TOV e,uoD A^erat 

prsesenti loco Christus et decipit, cum KOI ai/ayyete i vfuv. " He shall receive 

Paracletum a se homine accepturum, of Mine, and shall tell it unto you."] 
quae nuntiet, dicit ; aut non nos fallif, 

K 2 

132 In what sense the Holy Spirit is said to be 

Comforter being found to be less than Christ, takes from 
Him what He delivers unto all else." With regard to what 
he here says of the Holy Ghost being less than the Son, it is 
to be understood exactly in the same way as we shall explain 
the subordination of the Son with reference to the Father, 
in the fourth book ; that is to say, in such sense as that the 
Holy Ghost be said to be less than the Son, not in respect of 
nature, but of origin ; inasmuch as He is derived from the Fa 
ther through the Son, as Tertullian says in his treatise against 
1 sua om- Praxeas, chap. 4 y ; and, accordingly, receives all that He has 1 
from the Father through the Son, agreeably to the declara 
tion of Novatian 2 . Tertullian, again, in the same book, 
[165] (chap. 8 a ,) more clearly explains this subordination of the 
Holy Ghost in the following words ; " For the Spirit is third 
from God and His Son, just as the fruit out of the tree is 
third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third 
from the fountain, or the point out of the ray is third from 

like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father 
through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all dis- 

y [Page 502.] ceeding from Him, but as through 
z To the same purpose the author Him, from the Father;" /cal vlov 5e 
of the Constitutions (vi. 11.) says; irvev/j.a, oi>x &s e avrov, a\\ us Si av- 
" There is one God, the Father of one TOV, e/c TOV Uarpos fKTropev6/j.vov. Hila- 
Son, of one Paraclete through Christ; ry, (lib. xii. [ ult. p. 444] on the Tri- 
evbs vlov riarepa, \_ov ir\fi6v<ai> ~\ evbs nity,) prays thus ;" Preserve untainted, 
HapaK\-rjTov Sia XpurTov. Gregory I beseech Thee, this religion of my faith, 
Nyssen (in his epistle to Ablabius, that what I professed in the creed of 
torn. ii. p. 459, [vol. iii. p. 27.] ) thus de- my regeneration, ... I may always hold 
clares how from the same principle, i. e. fast; viz., that I may worship Thee 
from God the Father, both the Son and who art our Father ; and together with 
Holy Ghost have their origin in man- Thee Thy Son ; and likewise may at- 
ner diverse ; " For the One is from the tain unto Thy Holy Spirit, who is from 
First immediately, the other from Thee, through Thine Only-begotten." 
the First through that which is inline- Conserva hanc, oro, fidei mese incon- 
diately [from Him] ;" rb juej/ yap irpo- taminatam religionem, ut quod in reli- 
<rexws e TOW irpitiTOv, rb 5e Sia TOV irpo- gionis meae symbolo...professus sum, 
<rex<s e>/ T0 " irpcarov. Cyril (book i. on semper obtineam, Patrem scilicet te 
the Adoration &c.) has the words : " The nostrum, Filium tuum una tecum ado- 
Spirit poured forth from the Father, rem, Sanctum- Spiritum tuum, qui ex 
through the Son;" eK Trarpbs fu vlov te per unigenitum tuum est,promerear. 
Trpox^o/mfv ov iri/ev/ma. vol. i. [p. 9.] See a Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo 
moreover his Letter to the Empresses, et Filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus 
[Kal yap fffriv e irarpbs (pvcriK&s, irpo- ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex 
XeJ/xevoi/ Si vlov rrj /cruret. " for He is flumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio, 
naturally from the Father being poured NIHIL TAMEN A MATRICE ALIENATOR, 
forth to the creation through the Son," A QUA PROPRIETATES SUAS DUCIT; 
vi. p. 44.] Damascene (book i. on the ita Trinitas per consertos et connexos 
Orthodox Faith, chap. 18. [cap. 12. gradus a Patre decurrens et monarchiae 
vol. i. p. 148.]) says: "And [He is] nihil obstrepit, et oiKovo/j-ias statum 
the Spirit of the Son also, not as pro- protegit. [P. 504.] 

subordinate to the Father and the Son. 133 

turb the monarchy, [and yet] guards the state of the eco- BOOK n. 
nomy b ." In these words he declares the Holy Ghost to be C H ^ " 
third in reference to 1 the Father and the Son, in such sense Por Y ( , AR1 . 
as at the same time to profess distinctly that He is of the l a. 
same essence and nature with the Father and the Son, and 
in no degree alien from the divinity of the Father. If, how 
ever, any one should suspect that the ante-Nicene fathers 
alone employed this reasoning, let him know that the most 
approved doctors of the Church, who flourished after the coun 
cil of Nice, also established the Godhead of the Son by the self 
same argument; which I could have abundantly proved, if the 
nature of my design had permitted a digression of this kind. 
Let it suffice here to adduce the testimonies of two fathers 
who beyond all controversy held most firmly to the Nicene 
Creed. Athanasius, in his second Oration against the Arians, 59 
says c ; "But to the disciples, shewing His divinity and His 
majesty, and no longer [allowing them to think] that He [166] 
was inferior to, but intimating that He was greater than, 
and equal to d the Spirit, He gave the Spirit, and said, Re 
ceive ye the Holy Ghost/ and I send Him/ and He shall 
glorify Me/ J Augustine (in his fifteenth book on the 
Trinity, c. 26,) says 6 ; "How is it possible that He is not 
God who gives the Holy Spirit ? Nay, rather, how great a 
God is He who giveth God !" Thus much, then, concerning 
Polycarp s short prayer and the form of blessing 2 of the 2 \oyia. 
brethren of Smyrna, which I have on this account followed 
out more fully, that all may perceive how ancient and clearly 
apostolic is that form of doxology which is used even at the 
present day in the Catholic Church, " Glory be to the Fa 
ther, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost :" and what a 
firm and fixed monument and bulwark of the apostolic tradi 
tion concerning the consubstantial Trinity it presents against 
all the attacks 3 of heretics. 3 nmchinas. 

18. As concerns Polycarp, however, I will subjoin by way 

b [See above, p. 92.] a Greater, in respect of causation 

^ TOIS 5e fMBiiTais r^v BeAr-tyr* Kal (KO.T alriav) ; equal, in respect of nature 

T^vn&ya\i6nrra hucvbs tavrov, OVKCTI (Kara Qiffiv.) [The words ptifam Kal, 

5e iJj&rnufa rov wvctparos tavrbv, a\\a " greater than, and" are omitted in the 

(/telfopa Kal) laov (oWa) tnj/uafvwi , eSt- Benedictine edition. B.] 

Sou nevjl vvevfM, Kal eAe7e/, ActySere e Quomodo Deus non est, qui dat 

rb vvevpa ayiov Kal. Eyb avro ano- Spiritum Sanctum? inio quantus Deus 

crT6\Aw KJKWOS ^ So^dffft. [Orat. est, qui dat Deum ? [ Vol. viii. p. 999, 1 
i. 50. vol. i. p. 454.] 

134 Further evidence of the Catholicity of Poly carp. 

of addition 1 two considerations besides, from which it will be- 
come st ^ more manifest, how much he shrunk from 2 both 
the Samosatene and the Arian views respecting the Son of 
God. First then, if you would know what was the belief of 
loco. Polycarp respecting the Son of God, consult Irenseus. He, 

2 abhor- j n hi s youth, was a most attentive hearer of this apostolic 

bishop, and even in old age retained his discourses firmly 
fixed in his memory ; (those especially in which he set forth 
what he had himself heard from the Apostles concerning the 
Lord Jesus ;) Irenseus, moreover, was able to refute the 

3 vigentes. heresies which prevailed 3 in his own time, by the analogy 
[167] of the faith which was held by Polycarp, even calling God 

to witness to the truth of the tradition, as he testifies him 
self in the fragment of an Epistle to Florinus, which is 
extant in Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist. v. 20 ;) so that it is most 
unlikely to be true, nay, is absolutely incredible, either that 
Irenseus should have been ignorant of Polycarp s sentiments 
respecting the primary doctrine of Christianity, or that (know 
ing them) he should willingly depart from them even by a 

4 vei latum hair s breadth 4 . Now I would venture to affirm, that no 
unguem. Qne of t j ie ^0}^^ o f tne Nicene f a ith (Athanasius him 

self not excepted) has any where put forward statements 
more exalted respecting the Son of God, or more express 
against the Arian blasphemy, than those which Irenseus has 
made in his writings respecting that very Son of God. This 
one point I except, that Irenseus does not use the word O/JLO- 
OVGLOS itself. Any one who shall attentively read what will 
be adduced in this and the next book out of Irenseus will say 
that I have not made this statement at random. The second 
consideration, from which one may with certainty gather the 
belief and opinion of Polycarp concerning the Son of God, 
is this ; Eusebius testifies that Polycarp in his Epistle to 
the Philippians recommended to them Ignatius Epistles as 
most worthy of being read, and f "as containing faith, and 
patience, and all edification, that pertaiueth unto our Lord." 
Polycarp then by his testimony expressed his approval of the 
whole doctrine of the Epistles of Ignatius. Now in the 
seven Epistles of Ignatius, which were edited by Vossius, 

irpiex ova 1 iriffriv KCU virofj.ov-rjv, KCU iraaav olKo^o^v, TTJP ets TOV ~K.vpi.ov TI^ 
. Eccles. Hist. iii. 36 . 

Testimonies from St. Justin Martyr. 135 

(and which, as no sound-minded person will deny, are the BOOK n. 
same with Polycarp s collection of them, known to Eusebius,) CHAP> IH * 


the true divinity of our Saviour is again and again taught in POLYCARP. 
the clearest terms, as I have already shewn. 

And thus far have we set forth the faith and opinion of 
those doctors of the Church, who were taught immediately 1 
by the Apostles themselves, on the doctrine that the Son is of 
one substance [with the Father.] 




1. JUSTIN MARTYR must be placed in the class next after JUSTIN M. 
the Apostolic writers, if not actually enumerated with them ; 
and his works are almost all replete with so many and so clear 
testimonies to the consubstantiality of the Son, that I cannot 
but feel indignant when I read the calumnies, with which 
certain presumptuous writers of this day 2 have essayed to 2 neoterici. 
stain 8 the memory of that most holy father and martyr, as [179] 
though he agreed in opinion with the impious Arians. 3 conspur- 

In the Apology, which is called the second, (although it carunt> 
is really the firsts,) Justin censures those* 1 who deny "that 
the Father of all things has a Son, who, being also the 
first-born Word of God, is also God." Here he plainly in 
fers that the Son, equally with the Father, is really God, 
from the fact that He came forth from, and was generated 
of God the Father Himself, as His Word and First-born. In 
a similar way in his dialogue with Trypho 1 , he reproves the 
blindness of the Jews, for denying that Christ "is God, 
[being the] Son of the only and unbegotten and ineffable 

B He wrote his first apology about p. 81.] 
the year 140. Cave. BOWYER. i eli/cu Qeoj/, rov fj.6vov /cat byewhrov 

h 6ri eVrlf vibs ry Tlarpl ruv o\uv nal app-f)rov 0eoD vi6v. p. 355. [ 126. 

$s Kal \6yos irpuir or otios &v rov 0eou p. 219.1 
/cat Qebs v-rrdp^t- p. 96. [Apol. i. 63. 

136 St. Justin Martyr on the Divine Generation of Christ. 



2 germa- 


God." And shortly afterwards in the same book, he pro- 
noimces k Christ to be "Lord and God, being 1 the Son of 

2. Justin, accordingly, every where declares Christ to be 
the true, genuine, real 2 and properly-so-called Son of God ; 
which the Arians never did or could have acknowledged from 
their heart. Thus, in the first (or rather the second) Apo 
logy 1 , " And His Son, who alone is properly called Son." In 
the second Apology m , according to the common editions, 
he says : " The Son of God, who is called Jesus, even if He 
had been man only in a sense common to all 3 , would yet on 
account of His wisdom have been worthy to be called the Son 
of God, for all writers call God the Father of men and 
gods; but if further we say that He, the Word of God, 
was generated of God IN A PECULIAR WAY 4 , beyond the 
generation common to all, as we said before, let this be 
common to us and you." A little afterwards 11 in the same 
work he says ; " Jesus Christ alone has been in a peculiar 
way 5 generated [as] Son unto God, being His Word and 
First-born and Power." Lastly, in his Dialogue with Try- 
pho, he calls Christ "the Only-begotten unto the Father of 
all, in a peculiar way 6 generated of Him, [as His] Word and 
Power, and afterwards made man through the Virgin." 
Athanasius has admirably expressed the meaning of Justin 
in these passages, as well as that of Holy Scripture when it 
calls Christ the proper and only-begotten Son of God, in 
these few words p ; "For that which is naturally begotten of 
any one, and not taken to one s-self from without, nature 
recognises as a son, and this is the signification of the name 
[son."] See Petavius, On the Trinity, ii. 10, throughout. 

k Kvpiov Kal tbv, eov VLOV virdp- 
X oz/Ta. p. 357. [ 128. p. 221.] 

I 6 Se vlbs eKeivov, 6 /JLOVOS \eyo/J.evos 
Kvpias vl6s. p. 44. [Apol. ii. 6. p. 92.] 

"i vlbs 8e eoG, 6 lyaovs \ey6/j.vos, 
ei Kal Koivtas IAOVOV avdp&iros, Sid cro<piav 
a^ios vibs fov \eyea6af Uarepa yap 
re Oewv re Trdi/TfS ffvyypCKpe is 
Ka.Kov<Tiv. ei Se K.CU ifiicas irapa 
T}JV KOLVTJV yei/<nv yeyevricrQai avrbv e/c 
&eov A4yo/j.v \6yov 0eoO, us irpof(f>if]fji.fv, 
KOLvbv TOVTO ecrrco v/juv. p. 67. [Apol. 
1. 22. p. 57.] 

II Irjaovs Xpiffrbs fjidvos iSiws vibs T<J? 

i, Xoyos avrov virdpx cav 
/cat fivva/jiis. p. 68. [23. 
p. 57.] 

fj-ovoyev^s [yap $71 ^] rw Uarpl 
rSiv o\wv, [oSr^s] i Stais e| avrov \6yos 
Kal 8vva[ ye yej/TjjU.eVos, Kal vffTepov 
avdpwiros Sta TTJS irapQevov yev6p.evos. 
p. 332. [ 105. p. 200.] 

p rb yap eK TWOS Qvaei yevvw^evov, 
Kal fj.% i |w0ej/ eVtKTW/xei/o^, vibv olSev f] 

(plHTlS, Kal TOVTO TOV 6v6fJ.OLT6s (TTl T& 

ff-ri/j.aLi o^vov. De Decret. Nicoen. Sy 
nod. [ 10. vol. i. p. 217.] 


His illustrations proves the Consubstantiality. 137 

3. Besides this. Justin throughout explains the divine BOOK n. 
generation of the Son in such a manner, and illustrates it by i-ls. 
such similes, that it is very clear that he himself entirely JUSTIN M 
acknowledged His consubstantiality. There is a passage in [181] 
his Dialogue with Trypho especially remarkable, where he 
declares the mode of the generation of the Son in these 
words q ; "[It has been shewn] that this power, which the 
word of prophecy calls both God, (as has been in like manner 
shewn at length,) and angel, is not, like the light of the 
sun, numbered 1 [as another] merely in name, but is also 
numerically another thing ; and in what was said before I 
examined the reason in few words, when I said that this 
power was generated from the Father by His power and 66 
counsel; yet not by way of abscission, as though the essence 
of the Father was divided off, even as all other things being 
severed and cut, are not the same as they were before they 
were cut ; and I took as an example the fires which are lit as 
from a fire, which we see are other, and yet that fire from 
which many may be lit is in no way diminished, but remains 
the same." In these words Justin expressly teaches that 
the Son is indeed " numerically another thing/ (apiO^ut ere- 
pov TI,) another, that is, than the Father in number, or (in 
other words) in person 2 , but by no means different from Him 2 numero 
in nature; inasmuch as He was begotten 3 of the very essence aihima^ " 
of God the Father, and therefore is His Son, consubstantial Patre. 
with Him. For having attempted up to a certain point to t u p s rogeni " 
unfold the mode of the generation of the Sou, he says the [182] 
Son is begotten of the Father " not by way of abscission, as 
if the Father s essence were divided off," (ov /car aTrorojjLrjv, 
0)9 aTro/jiepL^ofjievris rrj9 TOV Harpos ovcrias.) To what purpose, 
however, would this assertion be, if the Son in His genera 
tion have nothing in common with the substance of the 
Father ? In the next place the simile by which Justin here 

OTI 5vva/ avrr), %]v ov KO.T airoro^v, o>s 

Kctl tbv /caAeT 6 irpo^riKbs \6yos, [&s~] rrjs rov Uarpbs oixrias, biro ia. ra &\\a 

Sta iroXX&v wffavTcas curoSe Sei/crat, Kal iravTa. /u.pi6/j.fva /cat Te/j.v6/ ov TO, 

&yyc\oi>, ovx us rb TOV r)\iov ^>a)s bv6- avrd eVrti/ & ital irplv T^Qrivai Ka.1 

Han fjiovov apifytcirat, aAAa /cat apid/Aip irapaSdy/jLaros X"-P Lt/ Trapi\-f)<peii TO. us 

erepov TL fffrl, /ecu eV TO?S irpoeipr)/J.ei ois curb irvpbs avaino^va. irupa, [&] ertpa 

Sia Qpaxewi rbv Xoyov f^racra, elirwv 6pu/uv, ouSei/ eAarrouyuej/ou eiceivov, e 

T^Z/ ovva/j.ii> ravrriv yeywTia-dai a-jrb rov ov$Qrivai Tro\\a^vvavra.i,a.\\a.rav- 

TlaTpbs, owd/j.ei Kal fiavhfj avrov aAA TOV fJLtvovros. p. 358. [ 128. p. 221.] 


Illustration of Light kindled from Light. 



1 pari ra- 

2 Deum 


3 rb 6/J.ov- 




illustrates the Catholic doctrine, manifestly confirms the con- 
substantiality of the Son. For he says that the Son is begotten 
of the Father, just as fire is kindled of fire. But who will re 
fuse to allow that the fire which is kindled of another fire is of 
the self-same nature and substance as it ? as Justin himself 
elsewhere in the same Dialogue, in shadowing forth by the same 
metaphor the mode of the generation of the Son, had distinctly 
reminded his reader. These are his words r ; " Just as, in the 
case of fire, we see another produced, that from which the kin 
dling was made being not diminished, but remaining the same 
as it was ; whilst that which has been kindled of it, itself 
also is seen to exist, without having diminished that of which 
it was kindled." When he says here that what is kindled of 
fire itself, is itself fire also, he clearly means to imply that, 
in an analogous way 1 , the Son of God, who is begotten of 
God Himself, is also God in the most absolute sense 2 . So 
bright is the light which shines forth from these passages, 
that Petavius, (the very same who accused Justin of Arian- 
ism,) after quoting them in part, subjoins these remarks 8 ; 
" What can be added to this profession of the faith and of 
the Trinity ? or what has been set forth more express, more 
significant, or more effectual, in the assembly of the fathers 
at Nice itself, or after it ? For the formula which was there 
settled, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, 
was anticipated so long before by this sentiment of Justin : 
from which the consubstantiality 3 also is established, that is, 
the communion and identity of substance without any par 

4. We must, however, carefully observe, that Justin, in 
the first passage which we adduced in the preceding para 
graph out of his Dialogue with Trypho, (and which occurs in 
the 358th page of the work itself,) is professedly impugning 
the heresy of those who were at that time teaching very 
nearly 4 the same as was afterwards maintained by Sabellius ; 
namely, that* " The Power which came forth 5 from the Fa 
ther of all things, and appeared to Moses or Jacob or Abra- 

r birotov eVi irvpbs 6p>fjifv &\\o yiv6- * Praefat. in torn. ii. Theolog. Dog- 

fj.fvov, OVK t\arTov/j.vov fKcivov e| ov }) mat., c. 3. n. 1. 

&i>atyis yeyovev, aAAa TOV avrov pevov- [The Greek words are : yivuaKca 

TOS, Kal rb e| avrov avafyQev, Kal avrb vivas . . tyavKtiv TT\V vva/j.iv rrjv irapd 

ov (paivrai, OVK eXarTwcrai e/tetVo e ov TOV trarpbs ruv 6\oov fyaveiaav Tq> Ma>i>- 

.p. 284. [ Gl- p. 58.] aet 7} T 

Views similar to Sabellianism impugned by Justin. 139 

ham, is called an angel when He goes forth unto mankind, BOOK n. 
inasmuch as through Him the Father s commands are an- c 3^4* 
nounced unto them ; but [He is called] Glory, when at any J USTIN M 
time He is manifested in an incomprehensible splendour 1 ; l <t>avra- 
and again, [He is called] Man and Human being 2 , when He visi 
is beheld in such forms as the Father wills ; and He is called 
the Word, inasmuch as He conveys to men the communica- 
tions that are from the Father 3 . But that that Power is 
indivisible and inseparable from the Father, in the same s n 6f * l 
manner as they say that the light of the sun upon the 
earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun which 
is in the heaven; and when that sets, the light is carried 
away along with it ; in such wise [they say that] the Fa 
ther, when He wills, causes His power to go forth from 
Himself, and, when He wills, He withdraws it back into 
Himself." Now these heretics, as it appears, strove to con 
firm their heresy by an argument derived from the con 
fession of the Catholics, who were in the habit of teaching 4 4 docerent. 
that the Son is of the same essence with God the Father. 
From that, as it would seem, they framed this sophism ; Either 
the Son is the same with the Father, and not personally dis 
tinct from Him, or we must say that the divine essence is 
divided into two parts, of which one constitutes the Person of 
the Father, the other that of the Son. This we gather from [184] 
this passage of Justin, by the following very 5 evident reason- 5 satis. 
ing. There were no Catholics who asserted that the divine 
essence is divided ; indeed Justin utterly rejects that notion 
as blasphemous : neither did the heretics against whom he 
is arguing assert it, but on the contrary, they laid down 
that the nature of God is unipersonal 6 , with the very view 6 ^VO-KOO- 
of escaping from such a partition of the divine essence. It <ra " ro " 
remains, therefore, that those forerunners of Sabellius loaded 

eV rfj irpbs avepcairovs irpo6Sy, TCOV ro rov fjXiov Qacrl (pu>s eVt yrjs eli/at 

ai/TTjs^ ra irapa TOV irarpbsroLS &Tfj.r)roi/ Kal axupiGrov ovros rov r)\iov 

ayyeXXerai- SJ|ai/ 8e, eiretSr) eV ry ovpavcf- Ka l, 6rav Svafj, ffvvairo- 

6/ ax^p-nry TTore QavTaaia. ^a^eraf ^eperat rb </>wr oiW 6 Trarfyj, o rai/ 

&v8pa 5e TTore Kal foepwirov KaAe?o-0cu, jSouATjTai, \eyovffi, SiW^uij/ avrov irpoir^- 

ttfi] eV fJ-opQats Toiavrais (TX^^^- 8aj/ iroiw K cu, 6rav ftovArjTai, TTO.XLV 

ficvos Qaiverai, alswp povAtrai 6 TTCIT V a.vaaTe\\fi els eavr6v. The Latin ver- 

|M \oyov KaXowiv, eVetS^ /cat ras irapa. sion only is given by Bp. Bull ; it has 

rov iraTpbso^iXias (pepei TO?S av6pwTrois been followed in part in the transla- 

oj/^Se Kal axupiVTOi rov warpos tion. 128. p. 221.] 
jv T}\V Svya/Atv virapxtw, ovirtp rp6- 

140 Unity of Substance compatible with distinctness of Person. 

ON THE the Catholic doctrine that the Son is begotten of the sub- 
CONSUB- s t ance O f the Father, so as to be a distinct Person from the 


LITY OF Father, with the weight of this invidious consequence , 
namely, that it would follow from it that the divine sub 
stance is, as it were, cut asunder and divided into two 
parts. Nothing is more certain. Now to meet this piece 
of sophistry, Justin does not deny that the Son is pro- 
8 ex. duced of 2 the substance of the Father ; nay, he rather re 

gards that as an undoubted truth ; but he shews that the 
Son is generated of the Father Himself, and that in such 
a manner as to be a distinct Person from the Father; not 
by a cutting off from the Father s essence, (according to 
the cavils of the heretics,) but by a simple communication 

3 essentite. of essence 3 ; such, almost, as is between fire, which, with 

out any loss or diminution of itself, produces other fire, 
and the fire itself [thus] produced. This mode of explana 
tion is also employed by Tatian, the disciple of Justin, (in 
his Oration against the Greeks,) in the following words 11 ; 
" He was generated, however, by division x , not by abscission. 
For that which is cut off is separated from the original, but 
that which is divided in voluntarily taking its part in the 
economy, does not impoverish Him from whom it is taken. 
For as from a single torch many fires are kindled, yet the 
light of the first torch is not diminished by reason of the 
many being kindled from it, so also the Word, [or Reason,] 
proceeding forth from the Power of the Father, did not 

4 &\ yov, cause Him who generated It to be without Word 4 [or Rea- 
Afoof* son/ ] Now from all that has been said the result is clearly 

[185] this, that the doctrine relating to the consubstantiality of 
the Son, that is, His being produced of the very essence and 
substance of God the Father, was, in the time of Justin, the 
received, fixed, settled, and established doctrine in the Ca- 

yeyove Se Kara /Liepiffudv, ov KO.T x [/cara jj-epiff^v. Bp. Bull trans- 

rb yap a.TroT/j, r]6kv rov Trpco- lates the words "participatione sive 

rov /cexcoptfTTaf rb 8e [Aepiffdfv oiKOVQ- communicatione," by participation, or, 

[ilas T-rjv a tpecriv irpovXafibv OVK eVSea in other words, by communication. It 

TOV ftQev efa-TjTTT at TreTronj/cej/. wo-rrep has been thought better to adopt the 

yap airb /juas SaSbs fvairrerai /uev Trvpa same English term as in the transla- 

TroAAo, TTJS 5e irpiarrjs Sadbs 5m T^V tions from Justin : though the word 

eatytv ruv iro\\S}v SaSwv OVK eAarroG- yueptrr/xbs is obviously used by Tatian 

rai rb $ws, OVTU Kal 6 \6yos irpoe\Qwv in a different sense, as appears by its 

K rrjs TOV Tiurpbs ou/c &\oyois being opposed to /COT O.-KOK.O^V. Bishop 

TTf-noiriKe TOV yeyevijKOTa p. 145. [ Kaye translated it by " division." See 

5. p. 247, 248.] his Just. Martyr, p. 1(J2. cd. 1836.] , 

Justin s testimonies to our Lord s Divinity from the 0. T. 141 

tholic Church : and that the heretics of those days opposed BOOK n. 
this doctrine by the very same cavils as were afterwards C A 4 P 5 IV 
employed by the Arians and other heretics ; and, lastly, that J USTIN ^ 
the Catholics of Justin s age refuted 1 that sophistry with dilmsse. 
precisely the same answer as the Catholic doctors used in 
silencing the Arians, after the controversy had been raised 
by Arius touching the doctrine "of One Substance." I 
would have you by all means call to mind what we said 
above in this book, chap. i. 10, 11, 12. 

5. Moreover, this same Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho y , 
shews at great length that Christ, in the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, is called "God" and "Lord," "the Lord of hosts 2 ," n om i- 
"the God of Israel;" that it was He who appeared to Abra- J 1 ^ 1 virtu 
ham, Moses, and the patriarchs, whom they worshipped as 
their God, and who is by the Holy Ghost dignified 3 with the 3 houesta- 
four-lettered name 2 . Further, those things which are spoken tul 
in these same Scriptures, and especially in the Psalms, of 
the supreme Lord and God of all things, these he proves to 
belong to Christ. Thus, for instance, after quoting that pas 
sage of David, Psalm xlv. 6, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever 
and ever," &c., he applies it to Christ, agreeing herein with 
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the most 
ancient Jewish teachers; and thence concludes that our [186] 
Saviour, /cal Trpoo-fcvvTjrov, KOI Seov, "both is to be wor 
shipped and is God." That conceit had never entered into 
the mind of Justin, (nor indeed of any among the ancient 
Catholics,) by which Erasmus, and after him Grotius, seeks 
to evade the sense of the Psalmist s words, both of them, 
I know not by what fate, born to disturb 4 all the more 4 convel- 
remarkable passages of Scripture which make for the divi- lenda 
nity of the Son, whilst at the same time themselves ap 
pear to have acknowledged that doctrine. For Erasmus 
says a , "It may be read 5 ," and Grotius insists that "ItMegi 
ought to be read 6 ," not, "O God, Thy throne is for ever 6 posse 
and ever," but, " God Himself is Thy throne for ever and berf d 
ever ;" that is to say, God will uphold Thy throne for ever. 
What argument (unhappily 7 ) could have induced these 7 malum. 
learned men to try to bring darkness over this clear testi- 

y p. 286, 287, [ 63. p. 160.]. fl^PI, or Jehovah.] 

* [ Nomine tetragrammato; that is, In Not. ad Epist. ad Heb. i. 8. 

142 Erasmus 1 and Grotius exposition of Heb. i. 8 , refuted. 

ON THE mony against the Jews and judaizing Christians ? " The 
Greek expression," says Erasmus, "is capable of two con- 
structions 1 b ." Be it so. Still the meaning and object of the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is certain and clear, 
from the second and third verses, in which he calls Christ 

2 per. the Son of God, through 2 whom the worlds were made, the 

Brightness of the Father s Glory, the Express Image of His 

3 charac- Essence 3 , who upholdeth all things by the word of His power 4 . 
leS. 68 " Tnis divine glory and majesty of Christ, and His infinite pre- 

4 verbo suo eminence above all angels and the highest orders of created 
potenti. beings, (in opposition, that is, to the Gnostics and other here 
tics, who commonly made their ^Eons and angels and powers 
equal to the Son of God c , which ought to be particularly ob 
served, otherwise the comparison made with so much pains, be 
tween Christ [who is] God, and the angels, who are creatures, 

5 frigida. would seem altogether without point 5 ,) is what the inspired 

author wished to prove in the following verses, down to the 
end of the chapter. If, however, the passage quoted from 
[187] the Psalmist (verses 8, 9) be understood according to the in 
terpretation of Erasmus and Grotius, how, I ask, does it make 
for the purpose of the author of the Epistle ? And what man 
of sound mind doubts but that, in the verses immediately fol 
lowing, (i.e. the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth,) the author meant 
to shew, out of the same Psalmist, that Christ is that Lord 
who in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and 
with His own hands formed the heaven, who also, when the 
whole fabric of this world fails, will continue to eternity the 
same unchangeable God? Again, suppose that the words 
admit of two constructions, yet certainly the authority of 
the ancients ought to have turned the nicely-balanced scale. 
For Justin does not stand alone on this point ; he is encom 
passed as it were by the whole host of the holy fathers, who all 
68 with one consent take 6 eos> (God) in this passage as a vo 
cative d , as it is frequently employed by the LXX in the Psalms, 
and it is besides a familiar usage in Greek, especially in Attic 
Greek, to put the nominative case for the vocative. The more 
ancient Jews also (however the modern rabbis may trifle) in 
terpreted this passage of the Psalmist just as we Christians do ; 

b Via. Poll. Syn. Crit. in Heb. i. 8. c Cf. Coloss. ii. 810, 18, 19. 
BOWYER. d [Via. Luc. xviii. 13.] 

Justin s exposition of Is. xi. 2. 143 

Aquila, at any rate, according to the testimony of Jerome, BOOK IT. 
rendered the original trr6tf by the vocative See. And what C A / 6 IV 
Origen 6 relates is worthy to be remarked, that he once J^T^ 
pressed a Jew, who was esteemed a wise man amongst his 
people, closely with this testimony ; and that he, being un 
able to escape from the difficulty, answered as became a Jew, 
that is to say, that these words, " Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness 1 is the sceptre of direc- 
Thy kingdom," referred to the God of the universe; whilst tionis 
the passage, ( Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated ini 
quity," &c., referred to the Messiah. That learned Jew, you 
see, though fully prepared and ready to escape by any other 
way whatever, never even dreamt of the conceit of Erasmus 
and Grotius, that God is the throne of the Messiah. At the 
same time we accept from Grotius his concession, that "for 6 [188] 
&eos the Hebrew is &rb$ ; a name which is wont to be ap 
plied both to angels and judges, when more than one; but 
when it is applied to one only, as here, it belongs to God 
alone, because it is then an elliptical expression or DY X > n ^ 
God of gods." This however is a digression. I return to 

6. There is another passage of our author well worthy of 
notice; it occurs later in the same dialogued Trypho here 
interprets the testimony of Isaiah, There shall come forth a 
Branch out of the root of Jesse, and the Spirit of God shall 
rest upon Him," of Christ, as indeed he was bound to do, and 
then puts this question to Justin on the subject of that testi 
mony; "You both affirm that He was previously in being as 
God, and also affirm that according to the counsel and will 22(Je consi - 
of God, having been made flesh, He was born man through the " 

Virgin ; how [then] can He be proved to have been previously 
in being who is being fulfilled through the powers of the 
Holy Spirit, which the word enumerates through Isaiah, as 
though He were wanting in these ?" To this question Justin 
replies thus?; "Your enquiry is most sensible and intelli- 

ls ; \ P- 43 [. fi6 - P- 37L J Karapi8p 6 

avrbv Trpovirapxovra Ae- pourai, us eVSe^s rovrcav 

, Ka.iKO.Ta rt]v /3ouAr/i> rov &eov trap- p. 314. [ 87. p. 184.] 
oi770eWa avrbv Ae yets Sta TTJS Trap- * j/oweeVrara *v 

ap- * j/owexeVrara u*v Kal 

a* p a.7rp m a o/ce 

rpovTrap X ui>, forts Sia. reav flvai aAA 3 tva. %s Kal rbv irepl TOVTW 
rov irv^p.a.ros rov ayiov, as \6yov, &KOVC S>v Aeyco. rauras ras Karrj- 


144 Exposition, though erroneous, evidences his right belief. 

gent ; for, in truth, there does appear to be a difficulty 1 . 
" Hear, however, what I have to say, in order that you may see 
L ir VoF the account to be given of these points also. With respect 
J_*L E _^L to t i iese p OW ers of the Holy Spirit which are enumerated, 
1 iinf " tftat the wor a sa y s that they have come upon Him, not as imply 
ing that He was wanting in them, but that they were about 
to make their rest on Him, that is, to terminate in Him, so 
that no longer, as in the days of old, were prophets to arise 
in your nation. Which you may see even with your own 
eyes, for after Him hath no prophet at all arisen amongst 
[189] you." I own that Justin s interpretation of the prophet s 
words is a strange one ; for it is obvious to all that they are 
to be explained as referring to the man Christ, enriched, be 
yond all others, with the gifts of the Holy Ghost. At the 
same time it is clear from this place that Justin held that 
this was to be taken as a certain and settled point, that the 
Son of God, as being [Himself] very God, is, in His own 
nature, most complete and perfect, wanting in nothing, and 
having no need at any time even of the gifts of the Holy 
Ghost Himself. For Trypho s argument is plainly this ; He 
2 veni3 that is very God 2 cannot possibly be wanting in any thing; 
Deus< but Christ, according to the testimony of Isaiah, was wanting 
in the gifts of the Holy Ghost ; therefore Christ is not very 
God, as you, Justin, maintain. Justin admits the major 
premiss, but denies the minor, and that on good grounds ; 
for the dispute between himself and Trypho was concerning 
Christ as God; although, as I have already said, he inter 
prets the passage of Isaiah incorrectly. If, on the other 
hand, Justin had held the same view as Arius, he might most 
easily and without any trouble have replied to Trypho, that 
there is nothing absurd in laying down that the Son of God 
was wanting in the grace of God ; and was capable of im- 
3 et in me- provement 3 , inasmuch as He is a.creature, and made God by 
lias profi- a d ption. Certainly Arius did not hesitate to say openly 
Use! PC " that the Son of God was liable to change and alteration, and 

pt0/XT?/xeVas TOV irvevfjiaros 5iW/xets, oix 8ai, TOV /ATj/ceri tv ry yevfi v/j.aii /card 

a>s fvSfovs avrov rovrcav ovros, (prjalv 6 TO ira\aibv tOos Trpo^ras yevT]crf(rdai. 

\6yos e7T6\7jAu0eVai eV avrbv, aAA cbs oirep Kal ttyei vfj.1v iSeTi/ eVrf /*6T* fKeivov 

CTT tKtivov a.vairavffiv /J.f\\ovarcav iroif i- yap ovfifls oXcas Trpot/njTTjs Trap v/aV 76- 

o-Oat, rovTfffTiv, eV avrov irepas iroif?(T- yevnrai. [Ibid.] 

The Epistle to Diognetus ; written by Justin. 145 

was, by reason of 1 the freedom of His will, capable of virtue BOOK n. 
and vice; as is manifest from the epistle of Alexander ad- C "6 P 7 IV * 
dressed to his brethren, catholic bishops 2 throughout the JUSTIN M. 
world 11 , and from the synodical letter of the Nicene fathers, L 190 ] 
and lastly, from the Nicene Creed itself. If, however, Justin * co-epis- 
had made this reply, he would have completely overthrown copos * 
his own previous argument ; inasmuch as in that he is wholly 
intent on proving, that our Saviour is very God, and to be 

7. In another place also, I mean in the Hortatory Address 
to the Greeks 1 , Justin observes, that He who appeared to 
Moses in the bush, (whom he uniformly declares to have 
been the Son of God,) speaks of Himself as the " I am," ( T ov 
OVTO), and then he expressly remarks, that this designation 
" belongs to the ever-existing God/ (rc3 del OVTI 0e&> irpoa-- 
qrceiv). We shall adduce the passage entire in a more fitting 69 
place, that is, in the following book, concerning the co-eter 
nity of the Son. To this we must add a very illustrious 
passage of Justin, contained in his admirable epistle to Dio- 
gnetus. That this epistle is a genuine work of our author, is 
not doubted (so far as I am aware) by any learned man of 
the present day; hence Scultetus classes it amongst those 
writings which are by common consent attributed to Justin. 
The objection raised by Sandius k , that Bellarmine did not 
even enumerate this epistle in the list of Justin s works, is 
altogether frivolous ; forasmuch as it is plain that Bellarmine 
followed Robert Stephens edition of the works of Justin, 
printed at Paris in the year 1551, in which the Address 
to the Greeks, and the Epistle to Diognetus are omitted. 
Afterwards, however, in the year 1592, these works were 
edited separately by Robert Stephens son, Henry, ac 
companied with a Latin version of his own and copious 
annotations. Hence the Address to the Greeks too, as 
it was wanting in Robert Stephens edition, is also omit 
ted in Bellarmine s catalogue. Its genuineness, however, 
will not be doubted of by any one who shall read it atten- [191] 
tively, and compare it with Justin Martyr s other writings. 
But with respect to the epistle to Diognetus, Frederick 

h Vide Socrat. H. E., i. 6, and 9. length iii. 2. 2.] 

pp. 19, 20. [21. p. 22. quoted at * De Script. EccL, p. 20. 




146 Testimony from the Epistle to Diognetus, distinctly 

THE Sylburg 1 has justly remarked, that, when compared with his 
other works, it will be found to breathe the spirit of Justin, and 
LITY OF to have many points in common with the rest of his writings. 
But what need is there to say much? Sandius himself in 
another place (Enucl. Hist. Eccl. p. 76,) recognises this epistle as 
the genuine work of Justin. Let us now recite the very full 
testimony which we undertook to produce out of this epistle. It 
is as follows" 1 : " The Almighty and all-creating and invisible 
God Himself hath Himself from heaven established" the Truth 
and the holy and incomprehensible Word amongst men ; and 
hath fixed It in their hearts ; not, as one might suppose, by 
sending unto men A MINISTER either angel, or prince, or any 
one of those who order things on earth, or any of those to 
whom hath been entrusted the administration of things in 
heaven; but THE VERY FRAMER AND CREATOR of the universe 
Himself; by Whom He founded the heavens, by Whom He 
shut in the sea within its proper bounds ; Whose mysteries 
all the elements do faithfully observe ; from Whom [the sun] 
hath received to observe the due measures of the course of 
the day ; Whom the moon obeys when He bids her shine by 
night; Whom the stars obey as they follow the course of the 
moon ; by Whom all things have been arranged, and deter 
mined, and placed iu due subjection, the heavens and all that 
is in the heavens, the earth and all that is in the earth, the sea 
and all that is in the sea, fire, air, and the abyss ; all that is 
in the heights above, all that is in the depths beneath, and all 

1 In a note to page 501. v. 43. of the arai KOI viroreraKrai, ovpcti/oi Kal ra ev 

works of Justin. ovpavo is yrj Kal ra ev rp yp- ^.offffn 

m ourbs 6 iravroKpdrcap Kal iravro- Kal TO. ivrrj QaXaaarf irvp, aijp, aftvatros. 

KTIO-TTJS xal atparos Oebs, avrbs aw ov- ra eV Steffi, ra ev pAQeffi, ra eV r$ /ze- 

pavwvryv aA^fleiav Kal rbv Xoyov rbv ra^v rovrov irpbsavrovs airccrrei\ev dpa 

ayiov Kal a^piv6t]ro V avBp&irots MSpu- ye, els Wptwuv av ns \oyiffairo, 

av- TvpawiSi, Kal <po!3 V , Kal 

rat, Ka yxareffrip ras 

rwv ov Kaedirep av rts clicaffeiev, av- ^vovV a\\ ev e 5 7n/ma(/ccu) Tvpavrrjrt, 

-nptr-nv riva Wjufw, ^ ^77- ^ $a<ri\^ irefMiruv vfty ^aMTiXfa fvttt- 

apxovra^rtva rwv tie*6vTWrk ^V us ebj/ fire^ev cos irpbs avdpu- 

ta, : /) riva r&v ireTrKTrevpevow ras TTOUS ^7re/xi|/6i/ cos ffw^tav tVCpytV /c.T.A. 

eV ovpavols StoiK^fffis" oA\ avrbv rbv Justin, Epist. ad Diog., p. 498. [ 7. 

reyj iTTjj Kal 8r)/j.Luvpy bv roov 6\<av $ p. 237.] 

robs ovpavobs ttcrurev $ i> QaXawav > tviopvrai, otherwise read jvWpwr* 

ttiois opois eV/cAfi/. o ra pvffrfyia Stephens remarks, that the word 

vurrus iravra <pv\dff(reira ffTor X **? ^ Xlos ( the sun ) is wantm K befor ^ <1Xl ** 

ol ra utrpa rS>v rr,s fotpas op6^v - or after $v\<fareuf. Perhaps, however, 

A7706 ZaSffffiur & iretiapxel ffe^vi,, instead of e1\-n<pe <pv\affffetv, (hath 

vuKrl Aalvciv Kc\*vovrt $ 6t0apx T received to observe,) we ought to read 

ao-rpa, r$ ri)s tre^vris a.Kn\ovQouyra 7J\iox fyvXaffffei, (the sun observes.) 
op6/j.<(f y iravra 5toTTaxTat Kal Stwpt- 

implying our Lord s Divinity; compared with PhiL ii. 6. 147 

that is in the region that lies between. This One sent He unto BOOK n. 
them. Was it their, as any one of men might suppose, for CH o p ~ IVt 
despotic sway, and fear, and terror ? In no wise ; but rather, j^ STIN M> 
in clemency and meekness; even as a King sending His 
Son, a King, He sent Him; as God p He sent Him; as unto 
men He sent Him; as willing to save He sent Him." A [192] 
passage most worthy of all attention, as admirably describ 
ing the profound mystery of the redemption of man, and as 
also affording the means of setting right 1 all the passages in medelam. 
which the holy writer may seem to speak with too little [193] 
honour of the Son of God. So far, however, as relates to 
our present purpose, what could have been said more distinct 
than this in defence of the true divinity of the Son against 
the blasphemy of Arius? Justin expressly denies that the 
Word, or Son of God, is a minister (vTrTjpeTrjv), or creature, 
(for these two words are equivalent, as I have several times 
observed, and as, indeed, is of itself evident enough;) call 
ing Him incomprehensible and the very Framer and Creator of 
all things, on whose will depends, and by whose power is 
upheld the whole fabric of the universe, whether of heaven or 
of earth; and to whom all creatures, of what rank soever, 70 
are in subjection and obedience, as unto their Author, their 
God, and their Lord. He says also that He was sent into 
this world as a King by a King, as God by God ; that is in 
effect, the Son, a King, [sent] by the Father, a King ; the 
Son, God, [sent] by the Father, God q . I have observed 
above r , that the passage of S. Paul to the Philippians, ii. 6, &c., 
and a parallel passage 2 in Clement s epistle to the Corin- 2 ei gemi- 
thians, receive very clear light from this passage of Justin num 
Martyr, as they in turn throw light on it ; whether I made 
that assertion rashly 3 or not, the intelligent 4 reader will now 3 temere. 
be able to judge. What is said by Paul concerning Christ 4 cord 
before His humiliation 5 , that He then subsisted "in the 5 
form of God," and by Clement, that He was "the sceptre j^ *j? lpty " 
of the Majesty of God/ this Justin so sets forth, as to Himself. 
say that Christ in that state was " not a minister of God," 

P That is to say, who is beneficent .[" God is love."] 

and kindly in His nature, and full of 1 [There is more on this passage in 

love to mankind. See Clement of Alex- Bp. Bull s reply to G. Clerke, 20. 

andria, Paedag. p. 109. [p. 131.] p. B.] 

113, [135.] and compare 1 John iv. 8. r See of this book ch. 3. 4. 

L 2 

148 Passage from Justin on the objects of Christian ivorship ; 

ON THE (inasmuch as He had not yet assumed the form of a servant, 
SI^NTIA- or * n otfter words, a created nature,) but " the Lord and 
LITY OF Creator of the universe Himself." "What Paul says, that 
Christ afterwards " took the form of a servant, and was made 
man;" the same is [in effect] said by Justin, when he de 
clares that the Word, or Son of God, being sent from heaven, 
[194] "was placed amongst men." Lastly, what Paul teaches, that 
Christ, when He came into the world, " did not make a dis- 
1 non ven- play of 1 His equality with God the Father, but emptied Him- 
ditasse. se if. wna t Clement also says, that " Christ came not in 
the boasting of pride and arrogancy, although it was in His 
power [so to have come], but in humility;" the same is 
meant by Justin, when he adds that the Word and Son of 
God was not sent into the world by the Father " in despotic 
sway, and fear, and terror :" that is, not with a display of the 
2 tremendae dreadful majesty of His Godhead 2 , but "with clemency and 
mee kness, as one who was sent unto men." Certainly no 
more apt comparison of passages can be imagined. 

8. I will conclude my citations out of Justin with a pas 

sage taken from his second Apology, so-called, in which the 

holy martyr explicitly acknowledges a perfect Trinity of 

divine Persons, who ought conjointly to be adored with 

the same religious worship, and who alone, to the exclu 

sion of all created beings, are worthy of that kind of adora 

tion. For in this passage Justin replies to the heathen, 

who accused the Christians of atheism for repudiating the 

worship of idols, that they are not atheists, forasmuch as, 

though they do despise and set at nought the gods of the 

Gentiles, falsely so called and accounted, yet they do most 

3 unum et religiously worship and reverence One true 3 God, in three 

distinct Persons 4 . His words are these 8 : "We confess, in- 

personis deed, that in respect of such supposed gods we are atheists, 

distinctum. but not in respect O f the most true God, the Father of righte 

ousness and temperance and all other virtues, in Whom is 

no admixture of evil. But we worship and adore both Him, 

and His Son, Who came from Him, (and hath taught us 

8 Kal SfjLoXoyov/j.ei rcav TOLOVTWV VQJJ.I- Kal 5i5d^avra T^as ravra Kal rbv 

^0/J.evcav Qe&v adfoi elvar oAA. ov^l TOV TU>V &\\u)v eiro/j.evcai iced ^OfJ.oiov(JifVoaP 

aATjflecrTaTou, Kal Tlarpbs SiKaLocrvvrjs ayadcav ayycXcw arpar^v, 7rj/eG/xa re rb 

Kal (Twcppocrvvris Kal TWV &\\cav apercai/, irpo^TiKbv fffi6/j.eda Kal irpoffKvvovfj.*v, 

aveirifJLiKTOv re KaKias eou a\\ e tfe?- \6ycp Kal aA7?0em Ti/j.&VTfS. p. 56. 

v&v re, Kal rbv trap 1 avrov vibv f\QovTa, [ Apol. i. 6. p. 47. ] 

wrongly understood to imply the worship of Angels. 149 

[respecting]* these things and [respecting] the host of the BOOK n. 
other good angels, who follow Him and are made like unto C ^ A ^ 8 IV * 
Him,) and the prophetic* Spirit, honouring Them in reason 2 JUSTIN M. 
and truth/ From this passage, indeed, Bellarmine endea- sanctum, 
vours to establish the religious adoration of angels ; which 2 

inference of his, (if it be valid,) will entirely subvert the argu- Lat - vers - 

ment which I have derived from this place, in favour of the t 1 ^ 5 ] 

true divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost. That is to say, 

Bellarmine, after the words, StSdgavra f^as ravra, ("Who 

hath taught us [respecting] these things,") inserts a stop 3 , and 3 distinc- 

reads ; " But we worship and adore both Him and His Son, [ l uo " 

who came from Him, and hath taught us these things, and 

the host of the other good angels, who follow Him and are 

like unto Him, and the Holy Ghost/ &c. But Scultetus u 

kindled with just indignation 4 , meets him with this severe and 4 ardore. 

acute reply : " But what reason/ he says, " does he adduce for 

this little note of punctuation, devised in the Roman Ly- 

caeum? He adduces none; therefore we reject the sophis 

tical comma 5 of Perionius. Justin uniformly teaches, that 6 incisum. 

the Son hath revealed all things, and even God Himself, to 

us ; in this passage he adds, that by Him we have also been 

instructed concerning the ministry of angels. Was then 

this to be dissevered from its context by the Jesuitical 

clause 6 , that so by the suffrage of Justin also the supersti- articulo 

tious worship of angels might be established? You did not Jesuitico - 

perceive, sycophant, that if your little stop were admitted, 

the Holy Ghost would (contrary to the uniform tenor of [196] 

Justin s views 7 ) be made inferior to the angels, inasmuch 7 perpe- 

as He would have to be worshipped only in the fourth place. Su 

Had you turned over a single page, you would have seen sum. 

the clouds which obscure the present passage, dispelled by 

the very clear light of another place x , where he teaches, 

that the Father is worshipped by Christians in the first place, 

the Son in the second, and the Holy Ghost in the third; 

not that the angels are worshipped in the place next to the 

Son, nor even in the fourth place, nor in the fifth. You should 

have consulted the Dialogue with Trypho, as it is entitled, 

1 [In translating this passage Bp. dium of Justin Martyr s doctrine, chap. 

Bull s rendering has necessarily been 18. 

adhered to.] * [See 13. pp. 60, 61.] 

u Medulla Patrum, in the compen- 

150 Bp. Ball s construction and explanation of the passage. 



1 cultu ado- 

2 adoratio. 


3 exscul- 

4 sequentes 
sive famu- 
1 antes. 

5 adoran- 


and you would have found it proved from the divine wor 
ship 1 paid to Him, that the Angel who appeared to Lot was 
the Son of God; which proof would have had no force, 
on the supposition of worship 2 being paid to angelic crea 
tures." To this you may add, what indeed ought to be espe 
cially noticed, that in those very words of Justin, from which 
Bellarmine wished to educe 3 the adoration of angels, angels 
are expressly called following or attendant 4 spirits 2 (rovs ejro- 
fjbivovs), (he calls them ministers, (birr) per as), in the passage 
just now adduced from the epistle to Diognetus, wherein also 
he excepts from the number and rank of ministers, the Son 
of God, as he does both the Son and the Holy Ghost, in this 
passage,) whence it follows that they are in no wise to be 
worshipped 5 . But, you will ask, with what view is the men 
tion of our being taught respecting the ministry of the good 
angels by the Son of God, parenthetically inserted when he 
is speaking of the Son ? My reply is, that the parenthesis 
has reference (and I wish the reader to note this carefully) to 
what had immediately preceded in the same passage of 
Justin ; Justin had asserted that Socrates was put to death by 
wicked men, at the instigation of the devil, as being an 
atheist and an impious man, because he maintained that we 
are to worship the One true God alone, putting away the idols 
of the Gentiles as demons, that is, as evil spirits, enemies to 
God ; then he adds, that precisely the same had happened 
to Christians. His words are a : "And in like manner in 
our case do they effect the same ; for not only among the 
Greeks were these things proved [against them], by a 
word, through Socrates, but among barbarians also, by the 
Word Himself, having assumed a [bodily] form, and become 
man, and been called Jesus Christ. In Whom believing, we 
declare that the demons, who did such things, not only are 
not upright beings b , but are evil and unholy spirits, who in 

z That is, a metaphorical expression 
derived from the servants (pedissequi, 
" lackeys,") who are accustomed to fol 
low their masters. 

8 Kal O/J-OIMS e<|> rjpwv rb avrb eVep- 
yovffiv ov yap /j.6voi/"E\\T)ffi Sia 2o>/cpa- 
rovs virb \6yov j)\eyxOil ravra, a\\a 
Kal ev fiapfidpois VTT avrov TOV \6yov 
Kal avdpcairov 

Kal irjcrov Xpicrrov K\r)OtVTOS. <f Trei- 
(T0eVres Tj/j.e tsrovs ravra irp^avras Sai- 
/jiovas ov /j.6vov /ur? opdovs eiVcu ^a/iei/, 
a\\a KaKovs Kal avoffiovs ai/J.ovas, o l 
oi8e roils aperTji/ irodovinv ai/9pd!>Trois 
ras 7rpaeis (5^oio$ ex V(Tl - [Ibid.] 

b Grabe in his Adversaria reads 9eovs. 

Divine worship not to be given to any created bdncjs. 151 

their actions are not even like such men as are seeking BOOK n. 
after virtue." Now, after he had said that by the faith of %\ 
Christ we had been instructed to shun the worship of wicked JUSTIN M. 
angels, he most appositely adds immediately after, in the 
parenthesis we are speaking of, that by the same Christ we 
have also been instructed concerning other, that is, good, 
angels, as concerning spirits, who along with ourselves do 
service to God, and consequently are not by any means to 
be worshipped; so that the words in the parenthesis are 
altogether to be construed and expounded to this effect; 
" Who hath taught us these things, namely, what had gone 
before, about not worshipping the wicked angels, and also 
about the host of holy angels, which do service to God and 
imitate His goodness." The sum of the matter is this ; We 
have been instructed by Christ as well respecting wicked as 
good angels ; of the wicked [we have been taught] that they 
are evil spirits and rebels against God, and therefore worthy 
rather of execration than of adoration; of the good, that 
they are spirits which serve and obey God, and after their 
own poor measure imitate His goodness; and so not even 
they are to be worshipped . This passage, consequently, is [198] 
so far from making at all in favour of Bellarmine and the 
Papists, that, on the contrary, it furnishes an invincible argu 
ment against the religious worship of angels ; and most clearly 
shews, that, according to the mind of the primitive Chris 
tians, a worship 1 of that kind ought not to be paid either to l cult us. 
angels or to any order of beings who serve and wait upon 
God, (that is to say, to any order of created beings,) but unto 
the most Holy Trinity alone, Who created all things, and 

c Justin, however, in the words Bull ; Cave and Waterland with Grahe ; 

which have thus far been explained, [by Bp. Kaye (On Justin Martyr, p. 52. 

Bp. Bull in the text,] rather means note 7,) construes the clause as Bel- 

that Christ manifested, or more clearly larmine does, and suggests that the 

revealed, to the angels, as well as to heavenly host are mentioned subordi- 

men, the justice and the other attri- nStely, and that the words Kal rb*/ . . . 

Lutes of God. the Father ; as I have ffrpariv are equivalent to /j.erci TOV . . . 

said in my notes on this passage of Jus- o-Tparov, Justin having in his mind 

tin, p. 11. of my edition, and proved the glorified state of Christ, sur- 

from parallel words out of Irenasus. rounded by the host of heaven ; and he 

GRABE. [The Benedictine editor re- quotes, in confirmation of this view, 

jects both these interpretations Bull s passages from Justin. Others, who 

and Grabe s and strongly contends adopt the mode of construction which 

that Justin swords speak of the worship Bull mentions as Bellarmine s, shew 

of angels. Bull has more on this point that it does not involve the assertion 

in his answer to G. Clerke, 20. B.] that the angels were worshipped with 

[Le Nourry and others agree with Bp. the worship given to God.] 

152 Testimonies from Athenagoras, on the relation 


1 Lega- 


2 \6yos 
ev t Sea cal 

* J/OVS Kal 


6 consensu 


unto Whom all things are subject, the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost ; a statement which entirely overthrows the inventions 
of the Arians also, and of all other anti-trinitarians. For the 
rest, those passages of Justin, which some have imagined to 
be inconsistent with these, we shall afterwards consider in 
our own fourth book, on the subordination of the Son to the 
Father. I fear however that I may there omit one passage 
objected by Sandius, that, I mean, in which Justin is said to 
have taught, that the Son of God is "a created angel!" 
Let the reader, however, be assured that such a passage is 
no where found in the writings of Justin ; but that Sandius, 
shamelessly, as his way is, has falsely attributed it to the 
most holy martyr. I now pass on from Justin to other 

9. Athenagoras d , in his Apology 1 for the Christians, 
most explicitly acknowledges the community of nature and 
essence which exists between the Father and the Son ; for, 
with the view of explaining to the heathen philosophers, who 
that Son of God is, whom the Christians worship, he says 6 : 
"But the Son of God is the Word 2 of the Father, in idea and 
in operation. For by Him 3 and through Him were all things 
made, the Father and the Son being One ; and, the Son being 
in the Father, and the Father in the Son, by the unity 
and power of the Spirit f : the Son of God is the mind and 
Word 4 of God." What Arian ever spoke thus of the Son of 
God? He says, that the Father and the Son are one; and 
that not only by an agreement of will 5 , as the Arians con 
tended ; but by a mutual Trept^oy^o-t?, " circumincessione" as 
the schoolmen express it, so that the Son is in the Father and 
the Father in the Son. He says, that the Son is the very Mind 
and Word of God the Father ; in what sense this is to be un 
derstood we shall explain afterwards g ; meanwhile it is certain 
that it cannot in any sense be reconciled with the Arian 
doctrine. Nor must we overlook the fact that Athenagoras, 
in treating of the work of creation, which in the Scriptures 

d Athenagoras flourished about the 
year 177. Cave. BOWYER. 

6 aAA. effriv 6 vlos rov Qeov \6yos 
rov Trarpbs eV tSe a Kal et/fpyeia, Trpbs 
avrov yap Kal St avrov iravra eye i/ero, 
|j/bs ovros rov irarpbs Kal rov vlov ov- 
TOS Se rov vlov tv Trarpl, Kal irarpbs eV 

via, kvoTt)ri Kal Swa/Ati irvev/naros, vovs 
Kal \6yos rov irarpbs 6 vlbs rov Qeov. 
p. 10. ad calcem Just. Mart. edit. 
Paris. 1615. [ 10. p. 286, 287.] 

f [The words are so understood bv 
Bp. Bull.ii. 3, 14.] 

g Book III. 5. 46. 


of the Word to the Father, explained and commented on. 153 

is attributed to the Son of God, teaches, that the universe BOOK n. 
was created, not only Si avrov, "through" the Son, which c A 8 P g V 
the Arians were willing to allow, (understanding, of course, ATHENA!" 
through Him to mean, through Him as an instrument, GORAS - 
which of itself has no power to do any thing,) but also TT/JOS- 
avTov h , "by Him," that is, as, conjoined with the Father, 
the primary efficient cause ; and that with the addition of [200] 
this reason, that the Father and the Son are one 1 , in essence, i UMUtn 
that is to say, and nature , and consequently in power 2 and ope- sint 
ration; which is diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy. 
Presently after, however, in the same passage, Athenagoras 
distinctly denies, that the Son in the beginning came forth 
from the Father to create all things " as made/ (coy yevope- 
vov) or created by God, [a denial] which aims a deadly blow 8 jugulum 
at the Arian blasphemy. We shall hereafter bring forward JP t sum pe " 
the passage entire, in our third book 1 . A few words after 
he makes a full confession of the consubstantial 4 Trinity, in 
these words k ; "Who then would not think it strange, to 
hear us called atheists, who speak of God the Father and God 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, shewing both Their power in 
unity and Their distinction in order?" Parallel to this is the 
exposition of the view of Christians touching the most holy 
Trinity, which he advances elsewhere in the same 1 book, 
conceived in the following terms : " We speak of God, and 
the Son His Word, and the Holy Ghost, being one 5 indeed 
in power, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit 6 : in that the Spiritum 
Son is the Mind, Word, Wisdom, of the Father, and the 
Spirit an effluence 7 , as light from fire." Where he very 
plainly enough infers that the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost are one God, from this, that there is one only foun- 

h ["I dislike this reading very much. Edit. Benedict. B.j 
For it is not (as the learned Bull f Chap. v. 2. 

thought) equivalent to UTT avrov : nor k rls ovv OVK ttv aTropfaai, \4yovTas 

can any instance be brought forward in ebv Trarepa Kal vlbv ebv Kal Tri/eC/xa 

which all things are said to have been ayiov, SeiKvvvTas UVTUV Kal rrjv eV rrj 

created irpbs TOV \6ytv, instead of, what ivfoci SvvaiJ.iv, Kal T^V eV rrj ra|et 5m/- 

is very often used, virb TOV \6you. If, pefftv, a/courras aOeovs /caAow^eVous. p. 

however, we read irpbs avrbv, a very 11. [p. 287.] 

good meaning will come out, that is to > &ebv <t>a/j.ev, Kal vlbv rbv \6yov av~ 

say, that all things were created after TOV, Kal Trvtvjj.aa.yiov, kvov^va^v Kara 

the Word, that is, after the pattern 8foaniv,rl>v iraTtpa, Tbv vtiv, Tb irvev/na 

delineated in the Word ; omnia secun- OTL vovs, \6yos, aoty ia. vlbs TOV TraTpbs, 

dum Verbum, sive secundum exem- Kal cnroppoia, us tyws airb -rrvpos, ri 

plar in Verbo descriptum creata esse. " irvev/j.a. p. 27. [ 24. p. 302.] 

154 The Word and Spirit distinguished from the Angels. 

ON THE tain of Deity, namely the Fattier, from whose essence 1 the 
S^NTIA"- Son and tne Hol y Gnost are derived, and that in such wise, 

LITY OF as that the Son is the \6yos-, [Word or Wisdom,] from ever- 

, - 7- lasting existing and springing out of the very mind of the 

essentia. Father, (for that this was Athenagoras meaning we shall 

20 1 clearly prove hereafter,) and that the Holy Ghost also flows 

2 ex ipso forth and emanates from God the Father Himself 2 , (through 
Deo Patre. ^ g on ^ ^^ ^ s to sav? as we ] iave snewil above,) as light 

proceeds from fire. In passing you may observe, how com 
pletely Athenagoras acknowledged the consubstantiality of 
the Holy Ghost, equally with that of the Son. This divine 

3 ajweVws. philosopher, however, immediately 3 proceeds in the same 

passage to mention the angels, whom he styles erepa? Svvd- 
jjueis, "powers, other and different from" the Father, the 

4 longis- g on ^ aiic l the Holy Ghost ; inasmuch as they are very far 4 

removed from that uncreated nature in which the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost have their subsistence. On this 
account he soon after expressly says, that the angels were 
"made" by God (yevofjuevovs). As for those passages which 
Petavius, Sandius, and others have produced out of Athe 
nagoras as favourable to Arianism, we shall afterwards (in 
the third book m on the co-eternity of the Son) shew, that 
they have been alleged by them to no purpose. And indeed, 
respecting the other Fathers of the first three centuries, I 
once for all inform my reader, that whatever passages alleged 
out of them by sophists in support of Arianism, I have passed 
over in this book, these I have carefully weighed elsewhere, 
either in that third book, or in the fourth, on the subordi 
nation of the Son, and, if I mistake not, have given a clear 
account of them. And thus much concerning Athenagoras. 
10. We have already 11 heard TATIAN declaring, that the 
Son is begotten of God the Father, ov icar airoKoir^v, " not 
by an abscission," a\\a Kara fAepio-juoVj " but by a participa- 
5 [or"di- tion 5 ," or communication of the Father s essence, just as 
se^above one ^ re * s lighted from another ; now this, as we at the time 
p. 140.] shewed, clearly shews the consubstantiality of the Son. 
[202] THEOPHILUS of Antioch in his books addressed to Autoly- 

m Chapter v. throughout. Theophilus was promoted to the 

" See the fourth section of this chap- Bishopric of Antioch, circa an. 168. 
ter, [p. HO.] Cave. BOWYER. 

Theophilus distinct testimony of the Trinity. 155 

cus, which alone out of his numerous writings are extant at B OOK n. 
this day, has some passages which remarkably confirm the ^j^ ia 
catholic doctrine. Thus in the second book?; "The Word THEOPHI 
being God, and 1 born of God/ (@eo<? &v b \6yos, /ecu etc eov 1 LUS 
Tre^vfccos :) in which words he infers that the Son is God, " 
from the circumstance that He is born of God Himselfq ; that BulL 
is, according to the rule which I have elsewhere 1 " given from 
Irenaeus 8 ; " Whatsoever is begotten of God, is God/ (TO IK 
eov <yvvrj6ev Qeos ean.} Theopliilus had shortly before 
informed us, that by the Son of God we must doubtless 
understand " the Word, which exists perpetually laid up in 
the heart of God," (rbv \6yov, rbv ovra SiaTravrbs ev&idQerov 
ev KapSta 9 eov,) manifestly implying, that the Son has an 
eternal subsistence in the very essence of God the Father. 
That Theophilus also recognised the entire most Holy Trinity, 
is clear from those words of his in which he teaches, that the 
three days, which preceded the creation of the sun and the 
moon, were types " of the Trinity, that is, of God, and of His 
Word, and of His Wisdom/ (rrjs rpidSos, rov eov, /cat TOV 
\6yov CLVTOV, real rrjs (rofyias avTov t .) It is true that Peta- 
vius, who seems to have read the writings of the primitive 
fathers for the very purpose of finding or making blemishes 2 * 
and errors in them, endeavours from these very words of 
Theophilus to construct a charge against that excellent father. 
His words are these": "Theophilus explanation of the 
Trinity is widely different from what the Christian confession 
of It allows ; seeing that he calls those three days, which, at 
the beginning of the world, preceded the production of the [203] 
sun and of the moon, a figure of the Trinity, that is, of God, 73 
and of His Word, and of His Wisdom. He makes no men 
tion there of the Spirit, Whom he appears to have con 
founded with the Word ; for we have before shewn that he 
called the same Being the Word and Spirit of God, and truly 
[His] Wisdom." Now to this I reply, that, as well on 
account of Their common nature, as of Their common deri- 

p e&s &v 6 \6yos, Kal e /c eou ire^u- lation.] 
Kits. p. 100. [ 22. p. 365.] r [ p . 102.] 

<* [The Latin version of Bp. Bull is 8 Lib. i. p. 39. GRABE. [I. 8. 5. p. 

Deus existens sermo, utpote ex Deo 41.] 
progenitus; this particular portion of l p. 94 [ 15. p. 360.] 
his argument is grounded on that trans- u Trin. i. 3. 6. 

156 The Names not the Persons of Son and Spirit confused. 

ON THE vation from one and the same fountain of Godhead 1 , the 
ITJ^" ancients used to make the names also of the second and the 

I A .N 1 1 A - 

LITY OF third Persons [of the Trinity] common. Hence, as the name 
- " Spirit of God/ which more frequently marks the third 
e6- divine Person, is (as I have shewn already y ) sometimes applied 

by them to the second Person; so the name Wisdom, though 
it is used for the most part to denote the second Person, is 
occasionally employed to designate the third. And, besides 
Theophilus, we shall elsewhere 2 have to observe that this was 
done also by Irenseus and Origen ; and yet these holy fathers 
must not on that account be regarded as confounding the 
second and the third Persons of the Trinity ; forasmuch as 
it is most manifest from their writings, and that from those 
very passages in which they interchange the names of either 
[Person,] that they did themselves account the Son and the 
Holy Ghost to be Persons really distinct from each other. 
And with respect to Theophilus, every one must see that his 
words are of themselves sufficient for their own vindication ? 
For how it is to be supposed that he confounded the Holy 
Ghost, the third Person of the Godhead, with the Word, 
when he expressly confesses TY]V Tpt,da } the Trinity ? What ? 
, Can the Father and the Son, without the Spirit, or a third 
Person distinct from both, constitute a Trinity ? It is clear, 
therefore, that Theophilus confused the names only, not the 
Persons, of the Son and the Holy Ghost. But concerning 
Theophilus of Antioch, this is enough at present. 
LUCIAN. 11. And here I entreat the reader to allow me to turn aside 
[204] for a moment from the remains of the holy fathers to the 
writings of a heathen. The author of the dialogue, ascribed 
to Lucian, which is entitled Philopatris, toward the conclu 
sion 8 by way of ridicule introduces a Christian catechising 
a heathen, (whom, on that account, he somewhere in the 
Dialogue expressly calls a catechumen,) and amongst other 
subjects explaining to him the mystery of the most Holy 
Trinity. Upon the heathen asking the Christian, " By whom 
then shall I swear?" Triephon, who sustains the part of 
the Christian, replies 13 , " By the God who reigns on high, 

y [i. 2. 5. p. 48.] bus.] 

z See c. v. 7. of this book, and iv. h T^t/ueSoi/To ebv, peyav, &/J.&POTOV, 

3 11. ovpaviwa, 

* [Vol. iii. p. 596. ed. Hemster- vllv iraTpbs, Trvev/j.a e irarpbs 6Kiropev6- 

Indirect testimony to the Catholic Doctrine out of Lucian. 157 

great, immortal, celestial, the Son of the Father, the Spirit BOOK IT. 
Who proceeds from the Father, One of Three 1 , and Three TIQ U 
of One 2 : believe These to be Jove, and esteem Him God." L UCIAN . 
To which the heathen after some other matters thus retorts 3 ; l &JK 
"I know not what thou sayest; One Three, Three One d I" 7^^t 
Truly he must have bad sight, who does not perceive, &6s. 
that in these words is most clearly taught a Trinity of one re s ent 
substance 4 , or one God subsisting in three Persons. And 4 dpofotov. 
there is no doubt but that the author derived this from the 
system of teaching 5 of the Christians of his own age. Now 5 disciplina. 
if this Dialogue was written by Lucian, he nourished under 
Marcus Antoninus, (as the great I. Gerard Vossius has 
most clearly proved,) that is about the year of our Lord 170, 
a little after the time of Justin ; so that he was contempo 
rary with Tatian and Athenagoras, whose doctrine we have 
just been explaining. But James Micyllus in his Introduc 
tion 6 says, there is ground for doubt, whether this Dialogue 6 in Argu. 
be Lucian s ; since, though in its matter it be not unlike his mento - 
characteristic genius and wit, yet its style, and indeed its 
general construction, are quite unlike the rest of Lucian s [205] 
writings ; and some other learned men besides have followed 
this opinion of Micyllus. That writer, however, adds as 
follows ; " Whoever/ he says, " was the author of this Dia 
logue, it seems to have been his special object to offer con 
gratulation to the Emperor Trajan on a victory obtained in 
the east, in opposition to those persons who at that period 
forboded dangers and ruin either to Kome herself, or to some 
other place (for he only calls it their country 7 ) : these from 7 patriam. 
the first he calls sophists, but at last he describes them in 
such a way, that he almost seems to mean the Christians. 
For this is the bearing of what he says at the end about 
Persian pride, Susa, and the whole region of Arabia. For 
all these were at that time conquered by Trajan and reduced 
beneath the power of Rome, as may be seen in Dion, Eutro- 
pius, and the other historians of that period." Now, if this 
view of the case be a true one, we may then easily gather 
hence, what the faith of the Christians was, touching the 

/J.CVOV, ev (K Tpicaf, Kal e evbs rpia ravra flbid.] 
v6p.i$e Zriva, rbv Se rjyov eov. e De Histor. Grsec. ii. 15. 

d OVK olSa ri Ae 7is e/ rpia, Tpia %v. 

158 Date of the Dialogue called Philopatris. 

ON THE most Holy Trinity, even in the reign of Trajan, long before 
CONSUB- ^ a g e O f Lucian. I should, however, rather believe that 

5TANTI& . . 

LITY OF the allusion at the end of the Dialogue is to a victory over 
THE SON - the Persians gained by Marcus Antoninus, in whose reign, 
as we have already said, Lucian nourished. For thus Sextus 
Aurelius Victor f writes of him: "Under his conduct, the 
Persians, though at first victorious, at last yielded up the 
palm." Just so the author of the Dialogue likewise, towards 
the conclusion, introduces one Cleolaus, hurrying and panting 
to bring these joyful tidings, IleTrrcoKev 6<f)pv$ r> iraKai /3oo)- 
fjuevrj Ilepo-wv, /cat Zovaa, K\ewov aa-rv: "The long vaunted 
pride of the Persians is fallen ; and Susa, that noted city \ 3 
There is, however, a further, and that no obscure, indication 
[206] of the age of Marcus Antoninus, in the circumstance, that in 
this Dialogue certain persons are remarked on, who lamented 
the very heavy and unwonted calamities, with which the 
Roman state was then afflicted, and forboded in consequence 
still worse evils. Now hear what Aurelius Victor in his 
74 Epitome says respecting the commencement of this emperor s 
reign. His words are; " Marcus Antoninus reigned 18 years. 
He was a man endowed with all virtues and a heavenly cast 
of mind, and was stationed as a living outwork against the 
miseries of the state. For had he not been born for those 
times, surely all parts of the Roman empire must have fallen, 
as with one crash. For nowhere was there any repose from 
arms. Throughout the entire east, Illyricum, Italy, and 
Gaul, wars were raging. There were earthquakes, with de 
struction of cities ; rivers overflowed their banks, pestilences 
were frequent, and a sort of locusts infested the lands ; so 

f Ejus ductu Persse, cum primum annos 18. Iste virtutum omnium cce- 

superavissent, ad extremum triumpho lestisque iiigenii extitit, aerumnisque 

ccssere. In libro de Cjesaribus in M. publicis quasi defensor objectus est. 

Aurel. Antonino. [Marcus Antoninus Etenim nisi ad ilia temporanatus esset, 

did not go in person to the Eastern wars. profecto quasi uno lapsu ruissent om- 

The antecedent, to which the words nia status Romani. Quippe ab armis 

of the historian as quoted in the text nusquam quies erat ; perque omnem 

refer, is undoubtedly his colleague Lu- orientem, Illyricum, Italiam, Galliam- 

cius Verus, to whom the command was que bella fervebant ; terrse-motus non 

entrusted: " Lucium Verum in socie- sine interitu civitatum, inundationes 

tatem potentue accepit Ejus ductu fluminum, lues crebrse, locustarum 

Persae, cum primum superavissent, ad species agris infestae ; prorsus ut prope 

extremum triumpho cessere, Rege Vo- nihil, quo summis angoribus^ atteri 

logesse." Aur. Victor, de Csesaribus. mortales solent, dici seu cogitari queat, 

16. p. 260. ed. Schott] quod non illo imperante ssevierit. 

g M. Antonius, inquit, imperavit [Ibid.] 

The Catholic, not heretical, doctrine exhibited by Lucian. 159 

that one may almost say, that no one thing, which is wont BOOK n. 
to afflict mankind with the heaviest suffering, can be men- CH A n IV 
tioned or conceived of, which did not rage during this LUCIAN. 
emperor s reign." The dialogue in question therefore was 
written, either by Lucian himself (as I am inclined to think), 
or at any rate by a contemporary of Lucian; and that is 
just as suitable for our present purpose. Let us now hear 
what Sandius advances in opposition to this testimony; his 
words are, "I should say for my part h , that Tryphon" (he 
ought to have called him Triephon, or Triepho) " represents 
that class of men, concerning whom we read in Clement of 
Rome, (Constitutions vi. 25,) Ignatius to the Trallians, Tar- 
sians and Philippians, and also in Justin, against Trypho, 
who are earlier than Lucian." The fact is, he has himself 
no scruple in saying, devising, inventing any thing, if only 
it ministers anyhow to his impious cause. For any one may 
perceive, that the author of the Dialogue is not exhibiting for 
ridicule merely a particular and obscure sect of Christians, 
but the Christian religion itself ! Besides, the heretics, who [207] 
are mentioned in the Pseudo-Clement, in the interpolated 
Ignatius, and in Justin, affirmed the Son to be Him who 
is God over all things, that is to say, God the Father Him 
self. Whereas, in this brief confession of the Trinity, te the 
God who reigns on high," that is, the Father, is first mentioned 
as the fountain of Godhead ; then the Son of the Father is 
subjoined, as a Person distinct from that supreme God and 
Parent of all ; nevertheless He, with the Holy Ghost, is repre 
sented as so intimately conjoined in nature with God the 
Father, as that the Three constitute but One God, and yet 
in very deed continue Three ; a doctrine which is, and ever 
has been, held by Catholics ; but which differs entirely from 
the opinions of those heretics of whom Sandius was dream 
ing. Furthermore Critias, the counterfeit catechumen, de 
rides this doctrine as incomprehensible 1 ; "I do not under- 1 aKard- 
stand," says he, " what thou affirmest ; One, Three ; and A7?7rTOJ/ 
Three, One !" But the heretics alluded to by Sandius, 
avouched an opinion wherein is nothing incomprehensible ; 
for they made God unipersonal ((jLovoTrpoawirov}, that is, one 8 unam et 
only and singular Person 2 ; called merely, according to His 

h Enucl. Histor. Eccl. i. p. 88. 

160 Ireiueus. 

ON THE threefold aspect 1 (so to say) sometimes the Father, sometimes 
muL- the Son, and sometimes again the Holy Ghost. Lastly, 

LITY OF Critias, afterwards in the same Dialogue, (taught, you will 
observe, by Triephon,) scoffingly swears by the Son after 
this manner : " By the Son, Him who is of the Father, this 
shall in no wise be ;" Nrj rov vlov TOV e /c Tlarpos, ov rovro 
ryevrjo-ercu. Now the Catholics acknowledged the Son to be 
Him who is of 2 the Father; not so those heretics whose 
opinion Sandius pretends is set forth in this dialogue. The 
whole point admits of no doubt. From the profane author I 
return to the holy doctors of the Church. 




1. LET us now carefully attend to what that holy bishop 
and martyr, Irenaeus 1 , both learned of his apostolic instructor, 
Polycarp, and himself taught to others, concerning the true 
divinity of the Son of God. I have already pledged k myself 
to adduce marked testimonies out of this writer against the 
Arians ; whether I have, in this present chapter, fulfilled my 
promise, let the reader whose mind is not altogether preju 
diced, judge. In his third book, chap. 6 1 , Irenseus is wholly 
occupied in proving this point ; that " Neither the Lord, nor 
the Holy Ghost, nor the Apostles, ever gave to him who was 
not God, the name of God definitely and absolutely, if he were 
not very God. Nor called any one Lord in his own person, 
but Him, who is Lord of all, God the Father and His Son." 
He soon after quotes that testimony out of the forty-fifth 

1 He was born A.D . 97, and wrote minassent aliquando, nisi esset verus 

his work Adv. Haereses, A.D. 175. Deus; neque Dominum appellassent 

Cave. BOWYER. aliquem ex sua persona, nisi qui donii- 

k [p. 134.] natur omnium, Deum Patrera et Fili- 

1 Neque Dominus, neque Spiritus urn ejus, &c. Chap. 3. 18. GRABE. 

S. neque apostoli, eum qui non esset [p. 167.] 
Deus, definitive et absolute Deum no- 

The Name of God applied absolutely only to the true God. 161 

Psalm, cited also by Justin 1 , "Thy throne, O God, is for BOOK H. 
ever/ &c. ; and thus comments on it J ; " The Spirit hath sig- C f] P 2 v 
nified both under the appellation of God, as well Him who is i^^" 
anointed, the Son, as Him who anoints, i. e. the Father." 
From which we construct an argument to this effect ; Who 
soever in the Scriptures is absolutely and definitely called 
God, is God in very deed; but the Son, equally with the 
Father, is in the Scriptures absolutely and definitely called 
God; therefore the Son, equally with the Father, is God in 
very deed. The premises are Irenseus s; therefore also is the [213] 
conclusion which necessarily follows from them. He subse 
quently remarks that k , "when the Scripture names those [as 
gods] that are not gods, it does not set them forth as gods 
altogether 1 , but with some addition and intimation by which Mn totum. 
they are set forth as not being gods." 

2. To this must be joined a passage in book iv. chap. II 1 . 
"For our Lord and Master," he says, "in the answer which 
He made to the Sadducees, (who say that there is no resur 
rection, and thereby dishonour God and detract from the 
law,) both shewed the resurrection, and also revealed God ; 
declaring to them ; Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures 
nor the power of God. For/ He said, as touching the 
resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was 
spoken by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the 
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? And added, < He is 
not the God of the dead, but of the living : for all live unto 
Him/ By these words He has made it clear that He, who 
spake unto Moses out of the bush, and manifested Himself 
to be God the Father, He is the God of the living. For who 

1 [See tfiap. 4. 5. of this book.] hentes, et resurrectionem ostendit, et 

Utrosque Dei appellatione signifi- Deum manifestavit, dicens eis, Erra- 

cavit bpmtus, et eum qui ungitur Fili- tit nescientes Scripturas, nenue virtutem 

m ^ UUglt ld CSt Patrem Dei De resurrection, inquit, mortuo- 


n " ru non legistis quid dictum est a Deo 

urn eos qui non sunt dii, norm- dicente, Ego sum Dem Abraham, et 

nat, non , totum scnptura ostendit Deus Isaac, et Dens Jacob? et adjecit, 

et sLnTfio t CUm qU addit * mento N ** n mortuorum, sed viventium 

non es e dii 1011 ? & P f *"? sten duntur omnes enim ei vivunt. Per h*c utique 

non esse dn.-[ 3. p. 181.] manifestum fecit, quoniam is qui de 

^v,,, U o est Moysi, et manifestavit 

Kit LA ?i resp nsi0ne 1 uam ha - <* esse Deum Patrem, hie est viven- 
l Saddueseos, qui dicunt resur- tium Deus. Quis enim est vivorum 
em non esse, et propter hoc in- Deus, nisi qui est super omnia Deus, 
honorantes Deum atque legi detra- super quern alius non est Deus? ... 

162 Christ, being God, spoke to Moses in the bush. 

ON THE is the God of the living, but He who is God over all lm , over 
B C TA N NTIA~- whom there is no other God?" And a little afterwards ; "He, 
LITY OF therefore, who was worshipped by the prophets as the living 
/" God, He is the God of the living, and His Word, who also 
omnifu spake unto Moses, who also refuted the Sadducees, who also 
was the Giver of the resurrection." Then after a short space 
he thus concludes : " Christ, therefore, Himself with the 
Father is the God of the living, who spake unto Moses, and 
was manifested also to the fathers." What can be more plain 
than this? I mean that, according to Irenseus, He who spoke 
[214] to Moses out of the bush and revealed Himself to the patri 
archs, is the living God, the God of the living, God over all, 
and over whom there is no other god : but, according to the 
same Irenaeus, it was Christ Himself with the Father, who 
spake unto Moses and was manifested to the fathers. Now 
what follows from these things ? What, but that Christ Him 
self with the Father is the living God, the God of the living, 
God over all, and over whom there is no other God ; which is 
2 in termi- also affirmed by Irenseus in so many words 2 . 

3. This is more fully confirmed by the fact, that Irenreus 
also, iii. 18 n , cites the testimony of the Apostle (Romans ix. 
5) in the same words, and in the same sense, as Catholics of 
the present time receive them. For, with the view of prov 
ing against the heretics, "that Jesus was not one, and Christ 
another, but one and the same ;" after other things he thus 
adduces that passage of Paul n : "And again, writing to the 
Romans concerning Israel, he says ; f Whose are the fathers, 
and of whom according to the flesh [is] Christ, who is God 
78 over all, blessed for ever/ Erasmus, however, (whom some 
others have followed,) has endeavoured to render uncertain 
even this irrefragable evidence for the true divinity of the 
Son ; for he has devised three constructions of these words, of 
which one only acknowledges the Godhead of the Son. The 
very ancient father Irenseus, however, recognised none other 

Qui igitur a prophetis adorabatur Deus jected by tbe Benedictine editor. B.] 

vivus, hie est vivorum Deus, et Verbum n Neque alium [quidem] Jesum, al- 

ejus, qui et locutus est Moysi, qui et terum [autem] Christum [suspicare- 

Sadducaeos redarguit, qui et resurrec- mur] fuisse, sed unum et eundem [sci- 

tionem donavit Ipse igitur Chris- remus] esse . . . et iterum ad Romanes 

tus cum Patre vivorum est Deus, qui scribens de Israel, dicit ; Quorum Pa- 

locutus est Moysi, qui et Patribus ma- tres, et ex quibus Christ its secundum 

nifestatus est. [cap. v. 2. p. 232 ] carnem, qui est Deus super omnes bene- 

m [The words super omnia" are re- dictus in sacula. [cap. xvi. 3. p. 205.] 

The Fathers understood Rom. ix. 5. as we now do. 163 

than the received reading and construction. And with Ire- BOOK n. 
naeus agree Tertullian in his Treatise against Praxeas, c. xiii. H !; 4 V 
[p. 507.], &c. ; xv. [p. 509.] Novatian on the Trinity, c. xiii. IR ENJEUS ." 
and xxx. ; Cyprian, Testimonies against the Jews, book ii. p , 
(although Erasmus stated the contrary, being misled by a 
faulty copy of Cyprian) ; Origen on Romans ix. 5<i; Athana- [215] 
sius, Orations ii. and v. against the Arians, and in his work 
on the Common Essence 1 "; Gregory Nyssen against Euno- 
mius, book x. s ; Marius Victorinus against Arius, book i.*; 
Hilary, books iv. and viii. u ; Ambrose, on the Holy Spirit, book 
i. c. 3 V ; and on the Faith, book iv. c. 6 W ; Augustin on the Tri 
nity, book ii. c. 13 X , also against Faustus, book xii. c. 3 and 6?; 
Cyril, in book i. of the Thesaurus* ; Idacius against Varima- 
dus a , book i.; Cassian on the Incarnation, book iii., near the 
beginning 15 ; Gregory the Great in his Eighth Homily on Eze- 
kiel c ; Isidore of Seville in his book on Difference, num. 2 d ; 
and almost all the other fathers, "who" (as Petavius 6 says) 
"convict Erasmus of unthinking rashness, in that he hesitat 
ed not to declare ; They who contend that from this passage 
there is evident proof that Christ is expressly called God, 
appear either to place little reliance on other testimonies of 
Scripture, or not to give the Arians credit for any ability, or 
to consider with little attention the words 1 of the Apostle. " 1 sermo- 
This, as Petavius adds, is a false and shameless assertion of nem 
his, for which he was reproved even by Beza. But I return 
to Irenseus. 

4. There is a very illustrious passage of his, in book iv. c. 8, 
in which he says f ; "God maketh all things in measure and [SeeWisd. 
order, and nothing is not measured with Him, because nothing 

[pp. 715, and 729.] 37. p. 970.] 

P [c. vi. p. 286.] y [ 46. t. ii. p. 609.] 

[Vol. iv. p. 612. To these Ante- * [c. xi. 133. t. ii. p. 546.] 

nicene testimonies add Hippolytus, x [23. t. viii. p. 785.] 

(cont. Noet. 2. vol. ii. p. 7, &c., 6. p. y [t. viii. pp. 228, 229.] 

10.) Dionysius of Alexandria, (p. 246. z [t. v. p. 20.] 

and 248; Epist. Syn. Concil. Antioch.) * [ B ibl. Patr. Max., t. v. p. 728 1 

b [c- 1. p. 984.] 

[Athanas Orat. i. 11. vol. i. p. 415; c [Lib. i. Horn. 8. 3. torn. i. p. 1236.] 

Orat. iv. 1. p. 617 ; Epist. ii. ad Serap. a [De different. Spirit , S 2. p. 185.1 

n. p. 684; Epist. ad Epict. 10. p. 908; e De Trin. ii. 9 2 

De communi essentia, 27. vol. ii. p. 16.] < Omnia, inquit, mensura et ordine 

r l A \V u? - -" Deus facit et nihil non mensnm apud 

or i i tr> Lugd< 1677) eum,quoniarn nee incompositum [faav- 

V < al ov- 


.De Trin. iv. 39. p. 850; viii. 5l v farpov Trap avTov, foi 

M 2 

164 The Son is said to measure and contain the Father. 



i avaplO- 


2 capit. 

3 quantus 


4 apud 


is unnumbered 1 , and [he spoke] well, who said, that the im 
measurable Father Himself is measured in the Son. For the 
Son is the measure of the Father, since He also contains 2 
Him/ What can be clearer than this? He teaches that the 
Son is commensurate with the immeasurable Father, and that 
He contains and comprehends Him wholly, how great soever 
He be 3 ; consequently that the Son is equal to the Father in 
all things, with this single exception, that He is from the 
Father. For with Irenseus, to contain the greatness of the 
Father is the same as to be equal to the Father, as is evident 
from another passage in his works (i. 1,) where he relates 
the fable of Valentinus, namely, that Bythus (Depth) begat 
Nus (Mind) g , " similar and equal to him, who had put him 
forth, and alone containing the greatness of his father." It 
is, moreover, to be observed, that this is not a single testi 
mony, nor that of Irenaeus alone, but that it declares the 
mind of another catholic writer, earlier than he, or, at all 
events, his contemporary, whose words he here quotes. But 
see how the author of the Irenicum endeavours to evade 
this invincible testimony of Irenaeus. He replies forsooth h ; 
" Irenaeus does not here speak of every measure, by which 
the Son may measure the Father; but either of that measure 
of which he had just been treating, namely, the Son s fulfil 
ling, perfecting, and comprehending such things in the law, 
as had hitherto been measured and determined with the 
Father 4 ; or, if he speaks of any other measure besides, that 
of knowledge for instance, he means that it is perfect of its 
kind, but not therefore 5 absolutely supreme." To this I an 
swer : In the first place, what the heretic says in reply con 
cerning the fulfilment, perfection, and comprehension of the 
law by 6 Christ, is mere sophistry. For those words of the 
passage on which our proof rests, namely, " the immeasur 
able Father Himself is measured in the Son," &c., are not 
immediately connected with what Irenaeus had stated re 
specting the law, at the beginning of the chapter. I mean, he 
there affirms, that the ancient ritual law had had its own time 
measured and defined by God, so, that is, that it should begin 

p{Qu.t)Tov.~\ Etbene qui dixit, ipsum im- p 6fj.oi6v re Kai Iffov T(p irpofiaX6vTi, 

mensum Patrem in Filio mensuratum. Kai p.6vov ^wpoiWa rb /jLtyeGos TOV Ha- 

Mensura enim Patris Filius, quoniam T/JOS. [p. 5.] 
et capit eum." [c. iv. 2. p. 231.] h Irenic. p. 46. 

The context of Irenceus explained ; against Sandius. 165 

with Moses and terminate with John [the Baptist.] And then BOOK H 
passing from the particular to the universal, he incidentally CHAP. v. 
teaches, that God made all things whatsoever in measure 

and order, and that there is nothing that is not measured with 
God 1 . Whilst, however, he is thinking on these things, as if Deum. 

his mind was by a sudden flight uplifted, (a transition, which 
is by no means uncommon on other occasions in writers 
of this character,) the Saint perceives that God so loves mea 
sure and proportion, that not even to Himself would He 
choose to have measure lacking, whereby His own infinitude 
and immensity should be, as it were, circumscribed and 
contained. And this he confirms by this remarkable and 
excellent saying of a certain catholic writer; "The immea 
surable Father Himself is measured in the Son," &c. But 
soon recollecting himself, and, as it were, quitting that sub 
lime flight, he returns to his subject, shewing that the entire 
dispensation of the Old Testament 2 was temporal. Any one 2 totam y. 
will easily see that this is a correct analysis of the chapter, Test, ad- 
who reads it with any attention whatever 3 . Besides, who is so tionem. 
foolish as seriously to suppose that the words, "the immea- 3 non osci- 
surable Father Himself is measured in the Son/ &c., merely 
mean this ; that God willed that the ritual law of Moses should 
have its own definite time, and that, as it commenced with 
Moses, so at length being fulfilled through Christ, it should 
cease and be abolished ? For in this passage Irenasus is evi 
dently treating, not of the moral law, which is perpetual and 
everlasting ; but of what is called the ceremonial law, even of 
that which 1 "began with Moses," and "in due course termi 
nated in John," and of that " giving of the law 4 ," which "was 4 et de ]e _ 
to come to an end, at the revelation of the New Testament." gisdatione. 
Secondly, as to the other interpretation of the anonymous 
writer, Ireuseus expressly speaks not of a measure which is 
perfect in its own kind, whatever that be, but of a supreme 5 5 smnma . 
and adequate measure, such an one, that is, wherein the im- *-g 
measurable Father Himself, how immeasurable soever He be, 
may be measured. There is certainly a marked emphasis on 
the word ipsum, (Himself) ; so that the sentence, ipsum im- 

[Irenaeus words are; Lex] a plens tempora sua legisdationis] finem 
Moyse inchoavit, .... consequenter in oportuit habere, manif estate Novo Tes- 
Joanne desivit ; . . . [Hierusalemadhn- tamento. [iv. 2. p. 231. j 

166 In what sense God is comprehensible by man. 

THE mensum Patrem in Filio mensuratum, fyc., (" the immeasurable 
Father Himself is measured in the Son,") can have no other 
LITY OF meaning than that the Father, in so far as He is immeasur- 
- able, i.e. in so far as He cannot be contained by any creature, 


is yet comprehended by the Son. Gregory Thaumaturgus has 
given the sense of the passage, and I am inclined to think he 
had the passage itself in his view, in his panegyric oration 
on Origen, at the place where he says, that God the Father 
by His Son, " goes forth and surrounds 1 " Himself; an expres 
sion, which he presently explains by saying, that the Son 
enjoys "that power [which is] in all respects equal to the 
Father s;" (rfj larj Travry Swafjuet, rfj avrov.) We shall give 
the entire passage afterwards j . Thirdly, the sophist s endea 
vour to elude the force of this passage of Irenseus by means 
of that other, not far from the beginning of the fifth book, is 
altogether vain. For Irenseus does not there say, that man 
contains the greatness of the Father, or that the immea 
surable Father Himself is measured in him ; and again, in 
another passage, (book iv. chapter 37), he clearly explains in 
zaliquate- what manner a pious man is said up to a certain point 2 to 
contain the Father. His words are k ; " For the prophets signi 
fied beforehand, that God should be seen by men, as the Lord 
also says, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see 
God/ But in respect of His greatness and His wonderful 
glory, no man shall see God and live; for the Father is in- 
3 incapa- comprehensible 3 ; in respect, however, of His love and mercy, 
*et S quod an ^ because He can do all things 4 , He does grant even this 
omnia pos- to such as love Him, that is, to see God." Here Irenseus ex 
pressly asserts, that the pure in heart do not see God, or com 
prehend Him in respect of His greatness and wonderful glory, 
since in this respect God is incomprehensible, that is to say, 
by [mere] man or any other creature ; (on which account 
also he had said in the same passage, a little before, that 
God 1 "in His greatness is unknown to all those, who have 

j Chap. 12. 4. enim Pater; secundum autem dilec- 

< Przesignificabant enim prophetae tionem et humanitatem, et quod omnia 

quoniam videbitur Deus ab hominibus, possit, etiam hoc concedit iis qui se 

quemadmodum et Dominus ait, Beati diligunt, id est, videre Deum. p. 370. 

mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum vide- [c. xx. 5. p. 254.] 

bunt. Sed secundum magnitudinem x Secundum magnitudinem ignotus 

quidem ejus, et mirabilem gloriam, est omnibus his qui ab eo facti suiit. 

nemo videbit Deum et vivet ; incapabilis [Ibid.] 

Man contrasted with the Uncreated and Eternal Word. 167 

been made by Him;") yet in the passage of which we are BOOK n. 
treating, he clearly teaches, that the Son of God compre- 
hends His Father even according to His greatness ; viz., in 
such a mariner, as that the immeasurable Father Himself is 
measured in His Son. On a subject evident to all men 
there is no need to say more. 

5. It would be well nigh endless, were I to adduce all the [219] 
passages of Irenseus, which go to confirm the consubstantiality 
of the Son. I shall therefore be satisfied when I have added 
to the testimonies of the blessed martyr already brought for 
ward one or two more, which quite give a death blow to the 
Arian heresy. In book ii. c. 43. he represses and beats down 
the monstrous pride of the Valentinians, who arrogated to 
themselves a sort of omniscience, by drawing a most excellent 
comparison between a [mere] man and the Son of God : his 
words are these m : " But further, if any one be unable to 
discover the cause of all the things which are sought after, 
let him reflect that man is infinitely inferior to God, and [is 
a being] that has received grace [only] in part, and that is 
not yet equal, or like unto his Maker, and that cannot possess 
acquaintance with 1 , and power of reflecting upon all things as 1 experien- 
God does. For in proportion as he, who is a creature of to 
day, and has received a beginning of created existence, is 
inferior to Him, who is not made and who is always the 
same, just in the same proportion is he inferior to His 

Maker in knowledge, and in [the capacity of] investigating 2 2 ad inves- 

the causes of all things. FOR THOU ART NOT UNCREATED, O 

His OWN WORD; but on account of His eminent goodness, 
now receiving a beginning of created existence, thou art gra 
dually learning from the Word the dispensations of God, who 
made thee. Keep therefore the place 3 of thy knowledge, and 3 ordinem. 

ra Si autem et aliquis non invenerit omnium, in in ore m esse eo qui fecit, 

causam omnium quie requiruntur, co- NON ENIM INFECTUS ES, o HOMO, NE- 

gitet quia homo est in infinitum minor QUE SEMPER COEXISTEBAS DEO, SICUT 

Deo, et qui ex parte acceperit gratiam, PROPRIUM EJUS VERBUM ; sed propter 

et qui nondum aequalis vel similis sit eminentem bonitatem ejus, nunc ini- 

factori, et qui omnium experientiam et tium facturae accipiens, sen si m discis 

cogitationem habere non possit ut Deus: a Verbo dispositiones Dei, qui te 

sed in quantum minor est ab eo qui fecit. Ordinem ego serva tuse scien- 

factus non est, et qui semper idem est, tise, et ne ut bonorum ignarus super- 

ille qui hodie factus est et initium fac- transcendas ipsurn Deum. [c. xxv. 3. 

turae accepit, in tantum secundum p. 153.] 
scientiam, et ad investigandum causas 


1 consti- 

2 consti- 




Ps. cxlviii. 

Ps. xxxiii. 

Ps. cxxxv. 

5 consti- 

1 68 Contrast between the Son of God and created beings. 

do not, as one ignorant of what is good, seek to transcend 
God Himself"." These words shine forth with so clear a light, 
that they require not any commentary whatever or inference 
of mine. There is, however, another passage parallel to this, 
book iii. c. 8, in which Irenseus in like manner institutes a 
comparison between the Word, or Son of God, and the crea 
tures; it is as follows ; "None of all the things, which were 
created 1 and are in subjection, must be compared to the 
Word of God, through whom all things were made, who is 
our Lord Jesus Christ. For whether they be angels or 
archangels, or thrones, or dominions, that they were created 2 
and made by Him, who is God over all, through His Word, 
John for his part has thus intimated : in that, when he had 
said concerning the Word of God, that He was in the Father, 
he added, ( All things were made by 3 Him, and without Him 
was not any thing made. David also, after he had enume 
rated His praises all the things severally 4 which we have 
mentioned, both the heavens and all the powers thereof, 
added, For He commanded, and they were created; He 
spake, and they were made/ Whom then, did He com 
mand? His Word surely, through whom, he says, f the 
heavens were established, and all the host of them by the 
Spirit of His mouth/ But that He made all things freely 
and after His own will, David says again, Whatsoever things 
He would, them did our God make in the heavens above, 
and in the earth also/ But the things which were created 5 , 
are different from Him who created them, and the things 
which were made, different from Him who made them. 

" [See these words quoted again in 
iii. 2. 4. B.] 

Sed nee quidquam, ex his quae 
constituta sunt, et in subjectione sunt, 
coniparabitur Verbo Dei, per quern 
facta sunt omnia, qui est Domi- 
m^s noster Jesus Christus. Quoniam 
enim sive angeli, sive archangeli, sive 
throni, sive clominationes, ab eo, qui 
super omnes est Deus, et constituta 
sunt et facta per Verbum ejus, Joannes 
quidem sic significavit. Cum enim 
dixis^et de Verbo Dei, quoniam erat in 
Patre, adjecit, Omnia per eum facta 
sunt, et sine eofactum est nihil. David 
quoque, cum laudationes enumerasset, 
nominatim universa quaecumque dixi- 

mus, et ccelos, et omnes virtutes eorum, 
adjecit, Quoniam ipse prcecepit, etcreata 
sunt ; ipse dixit, et facta sunt. Cui ergo 
praecepit? Verbo scilicet, per quod, in- 
quit, Cceli firmati sunt, et Spirt tu oris 
ejus omnis virtus eorum. Quoniam au- 
tem ipse omnia fecit libere, et quemad- 
modum voluit, ait iterum David, Deus 
autem noster in coelis sursum, et in terra, 
omnia, qiuecumque voluit, fecit. Altera 
autem sunt quae constituta sunt ab eo 
qui constituit, et quae facta sunt ab eo 
qui fecit. Ipse enim infectus, et sine 
initio, et sine fine, et nullius indigens, 
ipse sibi sufficiens, et adhuc reliquis 
omnibus, ut sint, hoc ipsum praestans: 
quae vero ab eo sunt facta, initiuin 

The Name of God only applicable to the Uncreated. 169 

For He Himself is uncreated, without either beginning or BOOK n. 
end, wanting nothing, Himself sufficient unto Himself, and, CH | P 5 Vt 
besides, bestowing on all others this very gift of being ; IREN ^. US 
but the things which have been made by Him have had etadhuc 
a beginning; but whatever things have had a beginning, ^S s , 
are capable of dissolution, and have been made subject, and ut sin t hoc 
stand in need of Him Who made them ; it is [therefore] pSSuM. 
absolutely necessary that they should have a different appel- 80 
lation, even amongst those who possess but a slight power of 
discrimination in such subjects; so that He who made all 
things is, TOGETHER WITH His WORD, justly called God and 
Lord alone; but those things which are made, are thereby 2 2 jam. 
incapable of sharing this same appellation ; nor ought they in [221] 
justice to assume that name which belongs to the Creator." 
In this passage Irenseus plainly teaches, that the Word, or 
Son of God, is separated by an interval so infinite from all 
things which are created, made, and placed in subjection, 
(though they be creatures of the highest order, whether, that 
is to say, they be angels or archangels, or thrones, or domi 
nions,) that they are not worthy in any way to come into 
comparison with Him, even for this very reason that they 
are created, made, and placed in subjection. He teaches, 
that the Son of God also is, just as His Father, uncreate 
and eternal, wanting nothing, self-sufficient, and further 
more conferring on all creatures the gift of being. He more 
over expressly declares, that the Word, or Son of God, inas 
much as both He Himself is uncreated, and all things were 
made through Him, ought to be admitted to partake of the 
Divine Name together with His Father; whilst as respects all 
other beings, which have been created and made, it is alto 
gether by a misapplication and an improper use of the word 3 Abusive 
that we give to them the appellation, Lord, or God, which 
belongs peculiarly to the Creator. In fine, he asserts all this 
with so great earnestness, as to declare that those who cannot 
in this manner distinguish and discriminate an uncreated 

sumpserunt; quaecumque autem ini- ita ut is quidem, qui omnia fecerit, 

tium sumpserunt, et dissolutionem pos- CUM VERBO suo, juste dicatur Deus et 

sunt percipere, et subjecta sunt, et in- Dominus solus ; quae autem facta sunt, 

digent ejus qui se fecit; necesse est non jam ejusdem vocabuli participa- 

omnmo, uti differens vocabulum ha- bilia esse, neque juste id vocabulum 

beant, apud eos etiam, qui vel modicum sumere debere, quod est Creatoris. 

seusum in ducernendo talia habent ; [p. 183.] 


170 Petavius s objection; answered by himself; he shews that 




1 VTTOVp- 

yiav quail 
dam et 


2 scilicet. 

3 sui obli- 

nature from created things, are absolutely devoid of common 
sense. I question, indeed, whether any thing more effectual 
than this against the Arian blasphemy was ever uttered or 
advanced by any one of the Catholic doctors, who wrote after 
the council of Nice. 

6. Yet not even this passage of Irenseus could escape 
the criticism of Petavius; for from the circumstance that 
this excellent father, after he had quoted the words of 
the Psalmist, " For He commanded and they were created," 
&c. ; added "Whom then did He command? His Word 
surely ;" the Jesuit infers p , that a subordinate operation and 
ministerial function 1 [only] in the creation of the universe, is 
attributed by him to the Son of God, such as he intimates in 
book iv. chap. 17 q . But who can fail to feel the want of 
fairness and candour here exhibited by Petavius? How easy 
was it for him, to give a sound interpretation to Irenseus s 
words from the very context itself! As thus 2 ; God gave com 
mandment to His Word for the creation of the world, not as 
a master to a servant, (for Irenseus, in the very same pas 
sage, distinctly excepts the Son of God from the class of those 
things which are created, and made, and put in subjection,) 
but as the Father to the Son, of the same uncreated nature 
as Himself, and a partner of the divine dominion and power. 
God, moreover, gave commandment to His Son that the 
world should be made, in other words, He willed that the 
world should be created by His Word, the will of the Word 
Himself concurring thereunto. Accordingly, Petavius him 
self in another place, as if forgetful of his own declaration 3 , 
acknowledges that Irenseus s statements in this passage are 
catholic, and that some ancient writers, who lived after the 
Nicene Council, and were most energetic opponents of the 
Arian heresy, used the same way of speaking without giving 
any offence. For in his work, on the Trinity, book ii. r , he 
writes thus; "There are some writers, who have used the 
same way of speaking, without any offence whatever, taking 
the words ( Let us make man/ &c., Genesis i. 26) to imply a 
command and precept of the Father. For so Irenseus says, 

P Petavius de Trinil. I. 3. 7. See 
also Sandius, Enucleat. Hist. Eccles. 
i. p. 91. 

[c. 7. 4. p. 236.J 
r c, 7. n. 7. 

the fathers speak of the Father as commanding the Son. 171 

that the Word is uncreated and eternal, and that God gave BOOK n. 
unto Him commandment to create all things. And else- C ^^ Q 
where 8 ,, that man was created, the Father willing and com- J REN ^. US 
manding, the Son executing and creating/ Basil* also speaks 
both of the Lord as commanding (TrpovrdcraovTa), and of the 
Word as accomplishing the creation (Srjfjuiovpyovvra \6yov) ; 
so Cyril again, in the twenty-ninth Book of his Thesaurus^ ; [223] 
and Athanasius, in his treatise on the decrees of the Council 
of Nice v , explains the words of the thirty-second Psalm, He 
commanded, and they were created/ in such a manner, as to 
understand that the Father gave command to the Son. Ma- 
rius Victor likewise, in his first book on the Creation of the 
World, thus speaks ; Which, when the Almighty Son filled 
with His Father s mind created at the commandment of 
God/ The author, moreover, of a treatise on the Incarnation 
which is extant in the fourth volume of Augustine s works w , 
says, that the Son ministered to the Father in all the work 
of creation 1 , inasmuch as through Him all things were made. * in omni 
To the same effect are the words of Prosper in his commentary cc 
on the one hundred and forty-eighth Psalm x . He com 
manded and they were created ; for what God speaks, He 
says unto His Word, and the Word, through whom all 
things were made, accomplishes the command of Him who 
speaks/ Thus, it seems, Petavius himself has given the 
very best reply to himself! But whereas in the passage of 
which we are treating, Irenseus says, that God Himself made 
all things with entire freedom, proving his assertion by David s 
words, " our God hath made all things whatsoever He would, 
in the heavens above and in the earth ;" on this the author of 
the Irenicum proceeds to argue as follows y ; "As much as 
to say, the Word indeed made all things, according to the 
mandate of the Father ; but God Himself made freely what 
soever He would; an opposition which indicates that the 
Father is spoken of as greater than the Son/ If, however, 

s Patre volente ac jubente, Filio T [ 9. vol. i. p. 216.] See also 

veto exsequente et efficiente. Iren. iv. Athanasius Orat. contr. Gentes., torn. 

75. [The Greek words are; TOV /*/ i. p. 51. [ 46. vol. i. p. 45.] 

Tla-rpbs euSo/coDi/Tos Kal /ceAeiW-ros, TOV w [Lib. i.c.l. torn. viii.Append. p. 51.] 

Se vlov Trpdvo-ovTos Kal 5r]/j.iovpyovi>Tos. x [Quod enim Deus dicit, Verbo di- 

c. 38. 3. p. 285. B.] cit ; et Verbum per quod facta sunt 

* Basil, lib. de Spirit. S., c. 16. [vol. omnia, mandaturn dicentis exequitur. 

iii. p. 32.] P. 529. Op. Prosp. Aquit. Par. 1711.] 

u [torn. v. p. 254.] y P. 46. 




1 praeter 

f eni 
4 sententia 

5 consul to 
et liber- 

tem me 

? extra- 


10 prastru 

172 Iren&us was engaged in opposing Gnostic doctrines. 

this heretic had ever read Irenseus with attention, it is certain, 
that ne would have refrained entirely from so silly a cavilling ; 
for doubtless, when Irenseus asserts, that God the Father 
ma( * e a11 tn i n g s of His own uncontrolled will, through His 
Word or Son, he is opposing the Gnostics, who taught that 
the world was made by inferior powers, and that indepen- 
dently of the mind 1 and will of the Most High God. Against 
them the holy bishop, everywhere in his writings, affirms and 
proves these two points ; First, that this world was in no wise 
created by inferior powers, alien from the essence and nature 
of the Most High God ; but was made by the Most High God 
Himself, through "His own offspring 2 / and through*" His 
own hands 3 ," (to use the very words 2 of Irenseus,) that is to 
say, through the Son and the Holy Ghost. Secondly, that this 
world was not fashioned by any powers " cut off from the mind 4 
of God," (as he expresses himself in a passage, which we shall 
quote by and by from his first Book, ch. 19 a ,) that is to say, 
which acted independently of His mind and will, but that it 
was produced by God Himself, through the Son and the Holy 
Spirit, advisedly and with absolute freedom 5 . I repeat it, he 
either cannot have read the writings of Irenseus at all, or at 
best but carelessly and superficially, who does not perceive that 
this is the very mind 6 and view of that most excellent father. 
^ With respect to the other passage, (in book iv. chap. 
17 b ,) at which Petavius carps, and in which Irenseus seems to 
attribute to the Son, as also to the Holy Ghost, the function 
of a minister in the creation of the world, I reply, that Irenseus 
does not there mean, (as the Arians would have it,) a minister 
extraneous 7 to the Father, but of one substance 8 and of the 
selfsame nature 9 with Him ; or rather he merely meant, that 
God the Father accomplished that work of creation through 
the Son and the Holy Ghost, which the heretics used to 
attribute to ministering angels or inferior powers. Hear 
Irenseus s own words ; "For the Son, who is the Word of 
God," he says, "was preparing 10 these things from the begin 
ning ; for the Father stood in no need of angels to effect the 
creation, and to form man, for whose sake also the creation 

z [See iv. 20. 1 ; and v. 1 and 28.] 
a [c. 22. p. 98 ; see next page.] 
b [c. 7, 4. p. 236.] 
c Haec enhn Filius, inquit, qui est 
Verbum Dei, ab initio praestruebat, non 

indigeute Patre angelis, uti faceret 
conditionem, et formaret hominem, 
propter quern et conditio fiebat ; neque 
rursus indigente ministerio ad fabrica- 
tionemeoium quse factasuntad disposi- 

In what sense the Son and Spirit are ministers. 173 

was made ; nor yet did He lack ministering power for the BOOK n. 
formation of those things which were made for the dispos- 
ing of those matters which concerned man 1 , but possessed 
an ample and ineffable ministering power; seeing that to [225] 
Him there ministereth in all things, His own progeny and J. q ^* u ^" 
image 2 , that is, the Son and the Holy Ghost, His Word and hominem 
Wisdom, to whom all the angels are subservient and sub- I 
jected." As much as to say; The Father of all things had et figuratio 
no need of ministering agents to effect the creation, whether sua " 
angels, or other inferior powers, separated from His own 
essence and nature, as ye, heretics, have rashly and even 
impiously imagined ; inasmuch as both for this and for all 
things, His own progeny was fully sufficient, which was of 
Him and in Him, namely, the Son and the Holy Ghost, 
who are so far from being servants that they have in very 
deed all creatures, and even the angels themselves, minister 
ing, serving, and subject unto Them. O ! how far is all this 
from Arianism ! To set the subject, however, in a clearer 
light I will add to this a few other passages of Irenseus. In 
book i. chapter 19 d , near the beginning, he thus speaks con 
cerning the creation of all things through the Son and the 
Holy Ghost; " All things were made through Him, and ^^ 
without Him was not any thing made/ From all things/ inteliigibi- 
nothing is excepted ; but through Him did the Father make "cogni 
all things, whether visible or invisible, perceptible or intel- b y the 

v -i i o 1,1 i n senses or 

ligible" 1 , whether temporal for some special purpose 4 , or ever- by the 
lasting and without end 5 , not through angels or any powers mind -" 
cut off from His mind 6 ; for the God of all stands in need of 4 

nothing ; but through His Word and His Spirit making, 
ordaining, governing, and giving being to all things/ He 
teaches the same doctrine in book ii. chap. 55, towards the 5 sempiter- 
end, in the following words 6 ; "There is One only God the 

tionem eorum negotiorum, quae secun- telligibilia, sive temporalia propter 6 abscisses 

dum hominem erant, sed babente co- quandam dispositionem, sive sempi- e J us . 

piosum et inenarrabile ministerium. terna et aeonia, non per angelos, neque sententia - 

Ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua pro- per virtutes aliquas abscissas ab ejus 

genies et figuratio sua, id est, Filius et sententia; nibil enim indiget omnium 

Spiritus Sanctus, Verbum et Sapien- Deus ; sed et per Verbum et Spiritum 

tia ; quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt suum omnia faciens et disponens et 

omnes angeli. [Ibid.] gubernans, et omnibus esse praestans. 

d Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine [c. 22. p. 98.] 

ipsofactum est nihil. Ex omnibus au- e Solus unus Deus Fabricator, hie, 

tem nibil subtractum est; sed omnia qui est super omnem principalitatem 

per ipsum fecit Pater, sive visibilia, et potestatem et dominationem et vir- 

sive invisibilia, sive sensibilia, sive in- tutem ; hie Pater, hie Deus, hie Con- 

174 The Son and Spirit One with the Father. 

ON THE Creator ; even He, who is above all principality, and power, 

STANTIA anc ^ dominion, and might; He is the Father, the God, the 

LITY OF Founder, the Maker, the Creator, who made these things by 

THE SON> His OWN SELF, that is to say, by His Word and His Wisdom, 

the heaven and the earth and the seas, and all things which 

are therein." A passage parallel to this we have in book iv. 

chap. 37, near the beginning ; "The angels, then, neither 

formed us, nor fashioned us ; nor were angels able to make 

the image of God ; nor any other [being] except the Word of 

God, nor any power far removed from the Father of the 

universe. For God had no need of these, to make those 

things which He had fore-ordained within Himself to be 

made, as if He Himself had not hands of His own. For 

there is ever present with Him His Word and His Wisdom, 

* per quos the Son and the Spirit, through whom and in whom 1 He 

bu qm " made all things freely and spontaneously; unto whom also 

He speaks, when he says, Let us make man in Our own 


the substance of the creatures, and the pattern of what was 

made, and the figure of the embellishments which are in the 

world !" In these passages Irenaeus asserts such an identity 

2 ovffias of essence 2 (saving always the distinction of persons) between 

* the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, (whom with The- 
ophilus of Antioch and others, he designates under the name 
of Wisdom,) as to say, that the Father, in creating the world 
through the Son and the Holy Ghost, made it through His 

3 per seme- own self 3 . From all these places, however, it at length be- 
tipsum. comes m ost evident, that Irenseus entirely abhorred the 

Arian dogma, and altogether held that faith which was after 
wards set forth by the Fathers of Nicsea. 

8. The objection, which is made against the venerable 

writer by the author of the Irenicum, by Sandius and others, 

[227] that he attributes to the Son of God, even as God, an igno- 

ditor, hie Factor, hie Fabricator, qui Deus ad faciendum quae ipse apud se 

fecit ea per SEMETIPSUM, hoc est, per praefinierat fieri, quasi ipse suas non 

Verbum et per Sapientiam suam, cce- haberet manus. Adest enim ei semper 

lum et terrain et maria, et omnia quae Verbum et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus, 

in eis sunt. [c. 30, 9. p. 163.] per quos et in quibus omnia libere et 

1 Non ergo, inquit, angeli fecerunt sponte fecit, ad quos et loquitur, dicens, 

nos, nee nos plasmaverunt, nee angeli Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et simi- 

potuerunt imaginem facere Dei, nee litudinem nostrum ; IPSE A SEMETIPSO 

alms quis praeter Verbum Domini, nee substantiam creaturarum, et exemplum 

virtus longe absistens a Patre univer- factorum, et figuram in mundo orna- 

sorum. Nee enim indigebat horum mentorum accipiens. [c. 20. p. 253.] 

Of Christ s being ignorant of the Day of Judgment. 175 

ranee of the day and hour of the final judgment, we shall BOOK n. 
easily prove to be a mere senseless cavil. In book ii. chap. 49 g , C c H 
indeed, he thus writes ; " For if any one were to search out 

the cause, wherefore the Father, communicating with the Son 82 

in all things, has [yet] been declared by our Lord alone to 

know the hour and the day, he will not find a reason more 

fitting, or more becoming, or less dangerous, than this in this 

present time, (since the Lord is our only true teacher,) that 

we may through Him learn that the Father is over all things. 

For My Father/ He says, is greater than I-/ for this cause, 

therefore, does our Lord declare the Father to be pre-emi 

nent in respect to knowledge also 1 , that we also, in so far as we secundum 

are in the fashion of this world, may yield up to God perfect a s mtionem 

knowledge and such enquiries [as this] ; and may not per 

chance in seeking to investigate the transcendent greatness 

of the Father, faU into so great peril as to enquire, whether 

there be another God higher than GodV I admit that 2 an super 

these words do, at the first glance, seem to attribute igno- 

ranee to the Son of God, even in that He is, most properly 

[speaking], the Son of God. If, however, these sophists had 

found leisure to read the whole of that chapter of Irenseus, 

they would easily have seen, that the holy father s mind and 

view was quite otherwise. For in that very chapter he had a 

little before written concerning Christ our Lord to this 

effect h ; "For albeit the Spirit of the Saviour, which is in 

Him, searcheth all things, even the deep things of God / still 

in our case 3 , there are diversities of gifts, and diversities of 3 quantum 

administrations, and diversities of operations; and we, who adnOS 

t Etenim si quis exquirat causam, nem Patris investigare in tantum peri- 

propter quam in omnibus Pater com- culum incidamus, uti queeramus, an 

mumcans Fiho solus scire horam et super Deum alter sit Deus. _ l~c 28 8 

diem a Domino manifestatus est, ne- p. 158.] 

que aptabilem magis, neque decentio- h Etsi enim Spiritus Salvatoris, qui 

rem, nee sine penculo alteram quam in eo est, scrutatur omnia, et altiludines 

hanc invemat in praesenti, (quoniam Dei; sed quantum ad nos, divisiones 

enim solus verax Magister est Domi- gratiarum sunt, et divisiones ministerio- 

nus,) ut discamus per ipsum, super rum, divisiones operationum, et nos su- 

omma esse Patrem. Etenim Pater, per terrain, quemadmodum et Paulus 

ait, major me est; et secundum agni- ait, ex parte quidem cognoscimus, et ex 

tionem itaque prapositus esse Pater parte prophetamus. Sicut igitur ex 

annuntiatus est a Domino nostro ad parte cognoscimus, sic et de univer- 

hoc, ut et nos, in quantum in figura sis quaestionibus concedere oportet ei, 

hujus mundi sumus, perfectam scien- qui ex parte nobis praestat gratiam. 

tiam et tales quaestiones concedamus [Ibid.] 
Deo; et ne forte quaerentes altitudi- 

176 Ignorance ascribed to Christ, only as man. 

ON THE are upon the earth, know (as St. Paul says) f in part, and 
prophecy in part/ As, therefore, our knowledge is [but] 

LITY OF partial, so we ought also in all questions whatsoever to 

unto Him, who bestows on us [this] grace in part." Here 
by the Spirit of the Saviour is clearly meant His divine 
nature. For so in other places also, along with other ancient 
writers, whom I have mentioned above, he calls the Godhead 
of Christ, Spirit ; for instance in v. 1 ! , " If He [merely] ap 
peared to be man, when He was not man, neither did He 

1 neque Dei remain that which He really was, the Spirit of God 1 ;" and 
re P man U ebat. shortly afterwards he says in the same place ; " At last the 

Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having united Him- 

2 unitus. self 2 to the ancient substance of Adam s creation, made a living 

and perfect man." It is, therefore, manifest, that Irenseus at 
tributed ignorance to Christ only as man ; whilst to His Spirit, 
that is to say, His Godhead, he allowed the most absolute 
omniscience. For surely it will not appear absurd to any one of 
a sound mind [to say] that the divine Wisdom impressed its 

3 pro tem- effects on the human mind of Christ according to times 3 ; and 
tione. that Christ, in that He was man, " increased [made advance] 

in wisdom," (as it is expressly asserted in Luke ii. 52,) and, 

4 pro tem- consequently, for the time of His mission 4 [on earth], when 
a7ro<7ToA;?s. He had no need of such knowledge, might have been 

ignorant of the day of the general judgment ; although the 
reformed are strangely attacked by the Papists for this 
opinion, and especially by Feuardentius, who uses the very 
foulest language, and on this very passage of Irenseus, calls us 
" the modern Gnostics, who differ not a hair s breadth from 
the ancient;" and "a generation of vipers," being himself 
the most virulent viper of all. But to return to Irenseus. 
This is certain, that the holy doctor, wherever else he speaks 
of the Son of God, ascribes to Him, as Son, the most perfect 
knowledge both of the nature and will of His Father. Further 
more he, throughout his work, charges the Gnostics with im 
piety, for making the Wisdom and the Only-begotten of the 
If Mono" 1 ^ atner 5 subject to the affections of ignorance. Especially clear 

genen Pa- 

tris. ! Si hominis tantum speciem prse- antiquae suhstantiae plasmationis Adae, 

bebat, cum homo non esset, sane ne- viventem et perfectum effecit homi- 

que id quod vere erat, hoc est Dei nem. [Et Se /u^ &v &v8p(t)iros eQalvero 

Spiritus, xemanebat ; ... In fine Ver- tivOpuTros, o#re t> $v eV ahydeias e/uet- 

bum Patris et Spiritus Dei adunitus j/e, Tri/eCyua eoG. p. 53.] 

Irenaus elsewhere implies the Omniscience of the Son. 177 

are his words concerning Wisdom, ii. 25 k , at the very open- BOOK n. 
ing; "But how is it not a vain thing that they say, that 8 P 9 V 
even His Wisdom was in ignorance, diminution, and passion ? I REN ^ US< 
For these things are alien from Wisdom, and contrary to her ; 
they are no affections of hers ; for wheresoever there is want 
of foresight and an ignorance of what is useful, there is not 
Wisdom. Let them not therefore any longer give the name of 
Wisdom to a passible aeon ; but let them relinquish either 
its name or its passions." Now can any one suppose that 
Irenseus would have objected to these heretics their as 
cribing to their fictitious Wisdom the affection of ignorance, 
if he had himself attributed to the true Wisdom, that is, to 
the Son of God, the very same imperfection? Besides, it 
is Irenseus whom we have heard declare, that the immeasur 
able Father is measured in the Son ; that the Son contains 
and embraces the Father. Is it credible that he who wrote 
thus should have himself supposed that the Son of God was 
in any respect ignorant of the will of the Father? In short, 
if any one is doubtful in this point, let him read over again 
the words of Irenaeus 1 which we have already quoted in this 
chapter, 5. For there, in instituting a comparison between 
man and the Son of God, he attacks the omniscience which 
the Valentinians impiously arrogated to themselves, on this 
ground, that no man, no created being, " is equal to, or like 
the Creator, nor has been for ever co-existent with God, 
as His own proper Word has." It is therefore certain, that 
Irenseus did allow a most absolute omniscience to the proper 
Word of God the Father, as equal to, and eternally co-ex 
istent with Him m . 

9. But inasmuch as some writers, with whom Sandius 
leagues himself, charge Irenseus also with this, that he no 
where in his writings acknowledges the divinity of the Holy 
Ghost, I have thought it well in this place, in passing, to 
vindicate the most holy martyr from this calumny likewise. 

k Qupmodo autem non vanum est, phiam passum seonem vocent ; sed aut 

quod etiam Sophiam ejus dicunt in ig- vocabulum ejus aut passiones prater- 

norantia, et m deminoratione, et in mittant. [c. 18. p. 140.1 

passione fuisse ? Haec enimaliena sunt fc. 25, 3. p. 153.1 

a Sophia et contraria, sed nee aflec- - "[See Bp. Bull s Reply to G. Clerke 

tipnes ejus sunt ; ubi enim est impro- [28], where he speaks more at length 

videntia et ignorantia utilitatis, ibi concerning this passage of Irenseus. 

bophia non est. Non jam igitur So- B.] 

178 Evidence (against Sandius) that St.Irenaus believed 

I shall therefore shew, briefly indeed, but most clearly, that 
Irenseus believed that the Holy Ghost is, 1. A Person dis 
tinct from the Father and the Son, not a mere unsubsist- 
ing energy of the Father 11 ; 2. A divine Person, that is to 
say, of the same nature and essence with God the Father 
83 and the Son. The former proposition is sufficiently proved 
from the following passages, not to mention very many 
others. In book iv. chap. 14 5 , he thus speaks concerning 
the Son; "Receiving testimony from all, that He is truly 
man and that He is truly God, from the Father, from the 
Spirit, from the angels/ &c.; where the Father is mani 
festly one witness, and the Holy Ghost another, and both dis 
tinct from the Son, to whom they bore witness. He refers, 
it is plain, to the baptism of Christ, in which all the three 
Persons of the most Holy Trinity distinctly shewed themselves 
at the same time, the Father in the voice which sounded 
from heaven, the Holy Ghost in the dove which descended 
from above, the Son in human flesh. Shortly after, in this 
same passage, he says again ; " There is one God the Father, 
and one Word, the Son, and one Spirit." Here " one," and 
" one," and " one," necessarily make three Persons ; and it is 
likewise clear that the Holy Ghost is by Irenseus called one 
in the same sense as the Son also is called one; but 
the Son, as all allow, was held by Irenseus to be a Person 
distinct from the Father. But most explicit is the passage 
from the 37th chapter of the same book, the whole of which 
I have quoted above ; I will however again cite a portion of 
it * ; " For there is ever present with Him (the Father) His 
Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through 
whom and in whom He made all things freely and sponta 
neously; to whom also He speaks, when He says, < Let us 
make man in Our own image and likeness/ Observe, both 
the Son and the Holy Ghost were ever, i. e., from eternity 1 , 
present with the Father; yet neither of them was the Father 

h Non meram Patris tvepyeiav aw- -[c. 6, 7. p. 235.] _ 

Wen-arc,./, [i.e. not a mere energy of k Adest emm, mqmt, ei (Patn) sem- 

the Father, without a distinct perso- per Verbum et sapientia Films et 

nality or subsistence.] Spiritus, per quos et m quibus omnia 

iAb omnibus accipiens testimo- libere et sponte fecit, ad quos et loqui- 

nium, quoniam vere homo et quoniam tur dicens, Faciamus hommem adima- 

vere Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab ange- ginem et simihtudmem nostrum. [.c. 20. 

]i S) jc Unus Deus Pater, et unum p. 253. See above, p. 174. J 

Verbum, Filius, et unus Spiritus, &c. 

the Personality and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. 1 79 

Himself; and if in the words, " Let us make man/ &c., the BOOK n. 
Father addressed not only the Son but the Holy Ghost like- CH A g V 
wise, then the Holy Ghost, equally with the Son, is a Person lRENyEUS 
distinct from the Father. Besides, from this passage the 
divinity also of the Holy Ghost is certainly inferred ; for He is 
said to have existed from eternity with the Father and the 
Son; nothing however is eternal, at least in the judgment of 
Irenaeus, except God. Next, He is associated with the Father 
and the Son in the work of creation ; the work of creation 
however, according to Irenasus, (and indeed according to all 
of sound mind,) is the peculiar attribute of God alone. For in 
book iii. chap. 8, (a passage which we have already adduced 1 ,) [p. 168.] 
he teaches that He who makes and creates other things, is 
so distinguished from what is made and created, that He 
who creates is Himself uncreated, eternal, self-sufficient ; 
whilst they on the other hand have a beginning of existence, 
are susceptible of dissolution, depend upon their Creator, 
and do service, and are subject to Him. Whence also, 
in the same passage, from the fact that God the Father 
created all things through His word or Son, he infers that 
the Son Himself is, equally with the Father, uncreated, 
eternal, and Lord of all. But in other places also Irenseus 
expressly asserts the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Thus in a 
passage also quoted already, in book iv. chap. 17 l , the Son 
and the Holy Ghost are called the very offspring and image 2 2 ipsa pro 
of God the Father; and that for the purpose of distinguish- 
ing them from ministering angels, created by 3 God the 
Father through 4 the Son and the Holy Ghost, which are all 4 per. 
in consequence declared to do service and to be subject 
to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, equally as to God the 
Father, that is, as to their Creator. But beyond all exception 
is that passage of Irenseus in book v. chap. 12, wherein he 
teaches that the Holy Spirit differs from that breath 5 , or 5 afflatus, 
spirit, whereby Adam was made a living soul, inasmuch as [ 232 J 
the Holy Spirit, being uncreated, is the Creator and God 
of all things, whereas that breath was created. The passage 
is most worthy of being quoted entire ; " The breath of life," 
he says m , " which also makes man a living being, is one thing, 

1 [c. 7, 4. p. 236. See above, p. 172.] et animalem efficit hominem ; et aliud 
m Aliud est, inquit, afflatus vitae, qui Spiritus vivificans, qui et spiritalem 

N 2 

180 Irenaeus s interpretations, though incorrect, prove that 



1 [Isaiah" 
xlii. 5.] 

2 [Isaiah 
Ivii. 16.] 

3 in Deo 

and the life-giving Spirit, which also makes him spiritual, is 
another thing ; and on this account Isaiah 1 says ; Thus saith 
the Lord, that created the heaven and fixed it, that made 
firm the earth, and all that is in it; that giveth breath to 
the people that are upon it, and [the] Spirit to them that 
tread thereon declaring that breath is bestowed in common 
upon all the people that are on the earth ; but the Spirit 
peculiarly to such as tread under foot earthly desires. Where 
fore Isaiah 2 himself says again, distinguishing the things 
we have spoken of, For the Spirit shall go forth from Me, 
and I have made every breath reckoning the Spirit indeed 
to be peculiarly in God 3 , who in these last times hath shed 
It forth on the human race through the adoption of sons ; 
but the breath in common on the creation, declaring it also 
to be a created being. Now that which is created is a 
different thing from Him who created it ; the breath accord 
ingly is temporal, but the Spirit is eternal 11 ." We do not 
now trouble ourselves with this awkward interpretation of 
the prophet s words, for we are not consulting Irenseus as 
at all times the happiest expositor of Holy Scripture, but as 
a most trustworthy witness of the apostolic tradition, at 
any rate so far as concerns a primary point of Christian 
doctrine. Nor is it our present concern to enquire how valid 
the Scripture testimonies are by which he has established 
catholic doctrine, (although generally even in this respect he 

efficit eum. Et propter hoc Esaias ait, 
Sic dicit Dominus, qui fecit ccelum, et 
fixit illud ; qui fcrmavit terram, et quee 
in ea sunt ; et dedit afflatum populo, qui 
super earn est, et Spiritum his, qui cal- 
cant illam ; afflatum quidem commu- 
niter onmi, qui super terram est, po 
pulo dicens datum ; Spiritum autem 
proprie his, qui inculcant terrenas con- 
cupiscentias. Propter quod rursus ipse 
Esaias distiuguens quae praedicta sunt 
ait, Spiritus enim a me e.xiet, et afflatum 
omnem ego fed. Spiritum quidem pro 
prie in Deo deputans, quern in novis- 
simis ternporibus effudit per adoptio- 
nem filiorum in genus humanum; 
afflatum autem communiter in condi- 
tionem, et facturam ostendens ilium ; 
aliud autem est, quod factum est, ab 
eo qui fecit ; afflatus igitur temporalis, 
spiritus autem sempiternus. [frep6v 

fffTt TTVo)) fcOTJS, f) Kal ^V^ ttTTep- 

yau/j.evr) rbv avQpwirov Kal erepov 


Trvfv/J.a faoiroiovv, rb Kal TTVvfJ.a.riKbv 
aiirbv airoTtXovv. Kal 8iO rovro Hercuas 
(pTjcrii ovTb) Ae yet K.vpios 6 Troi {]o~as Tbv 
ovpavbv, Kal arspedxras avrbv, 6 7nrj|as 
T^]f yTJv, Kal TO. GV avrij Kal SiSovs 
irvoriv T<p \a< rep eir avrris, Kal 
TO?S TraTOvffiv avr-fjv T^V fJ.l 
iravr\ KOivoas rep eirl yijs 
S6adai TO 5e 7rpeG/xa iSic 
TCLS 7eaiSeiS fTriQvjj.ias Sib Kal -rrd\i 
avrbs Uffa ias Siaorr^AAeov TO. 

(prjo l Trj/eC^a yap -nap 6/x.oO e|e- 
eTai, Kal itvo^v Tratrav eyca eTroi7j<ra, 
iSi&s iri rov 0eo5 ra|as rov 
avrb . . . 8m Tr\s vtodecrlas 
firl rr]v av0p(air6Tr)Ta r^v oe irvo^v 
KOIV&S firl TTJS KTtVecos, Kal TTotyj^a ava- 
yopfixras avTf]V trtpov 5e effn Tb -rrofrj- 
Qev TOV 7roiTj(rai/TOs. 7] o3i/ TTVQ}} Trp6a- 
Kaipos, rb Se Trvfv/j.a atvvaov. c. 7, 4. 
p. 306.] 

11 See also Tertullian adv. Marcion. 
ii. 4. almost throughout. 

the Holy Ghost was held to be Uncreated and Eternal. 181 

has remarkably approved himself to all men of learning and BOOK n. 
piety,) but rather what he held to be catholic doctrine. In 
this place therefore, I say, Irenseus manifestly declares, that 
the Holy Ghost is both God and Creator. For, as Petavius [233] 
has very well remarked, the phrase, the Spirit being reckoned 
to be in God (in Deo deputari), which in Greek would be 
ev eo3, or els Seov \oyiecr0ai,, means the same as to be 
reckoned to be God (Deum deputari) ; just as when he im 
mediately adds?, "declaring the breath [to belong] in com 
mon to the creation, and to be created," what he says is 
the same as, that it is held to be created and made. Then 
he clearly asserts, that what is made, that is to say, the 
breath, is different from the Spirit, that is, from Him who 
made it ; and that the latter is eternal, whilst the former is 
but temporal. According to Irenaeus, therefore, the Holy 
Ghost is neither a thing created, nor made, but is God, pro 
ceeding forth from God 1 , and the Creator, and Eternal. And ] Deus ex 
thus much at present is enough concerning Irenseus. Deoeaens. 

CHAPTER VI. [239] 


1. I NOW proceed to St. Clement of Alexandria, the con- CLEM.AL. 
temporary q of Irenseus, and the genuine disciple of the cele 
brated Pantaenus, who, as Photius, [Bibliotheca] cod. 118, [240] 
relates on the testimony of others, had for his masters those 
who had seen the Apostles ; nay, and who had also himself 
been a hearer of some of them. Of him even Petavius r 
allows, that he adapted the Christian doctrine concerning 
the Word and Son of God to the views of Plato, for the 
most part without being at all suspected of error ; and that 

The Greek in John Damascene is, P [Thus understood by Petavius ; 

r}> irvev^a ISicas eVt rov eoC rd^as, r^i/ Afflatum in conditionem, et facturant 

Se TTvoyv KOIVWS eirl TTJS /criVecos, Kal ostendens.] 

jroir)fj.a ai/ayopevcras avT-qv. The last t Clement flourished from the year 

words confirm the explanation of the 192. Cave. BOWYER. 

most learned Bp. Bull. GRABE. r De Trinitate, i. 4. 1. 

182 Pet amuses and Huet s charges against Clement. 

ON THE his statements relating to the Son of God are correct, and in 
S^NTIA"- harmony with the catholic faith. In the same passage, how- 
LITY OF ever, and almost with the same breath, (that none of the 
- ancients might slip through his hands without being branded 
by him with the stigma of error on this article,) he finds 
fault with certain things, even in Clement, as savouring, for 
sooth, of the character of the doctrine of Plato and Arius ; of 
these we shall treat in their proper place. But I am beyond 
measure surprised at Peter Daniel Huet, a very learned, and, 
(so far as one can judge from his writings,) an extremely 
candid man ; in that, when Bellarmine defends Origen on 
the ground that the opinions of his tutor Clement, and of 
his pupils Dionysius of Alexandria, and Gregory Thauma- 
turgus were sound and orthodox on the mystery of the most 
holy Trinity, Huet in his Origeniana makes this reply 8 ; 
" Nothing, certainly, could he have said more prejudicial to 
the cause of Origen; for not one of the three entertained 
1 satis. very 1 pure and sound views respecting the Trinity. For 
whilst Clement separates the substance of the Son from that 
of the Father, in such a way as to make it inferior ; Dionysius 
tiroivuM. of Alexandria affirmed that the Son was a creature 2 of the 
Father, and dissimilar to Him, and uttered expressions 
altogether unsuited to the Spirit/ saith Basil (Epist. xli.)*, 
who also animadverts on Gregory Thaumaturgus, for having 
openly declared the Son to be a created being." By and 
by we shall have to speak of the illustrious pair of Origen s 
[241] pupils, as well as of Origen himself. At present our enquiry 
relates to Origen s teacher. Clement. I have, certainly, with 
no small diligence, examined all the genuine writings of Cle 
ment of Alexandria which are now extant, and that with the 
especial view of ascertaining his sentiments on this article 
[of the faith.] The result of this examination is my convic 
tion, that of the catholic doctors who preceded the Nicene 
Council, and even of those who succeeded it, no one has 
inculcated the true Godhead of the Son more clearly, dis 
tinctly, and significantly than the Clement of whom we are 
treating. In truth this writer s pages are full on both sides 
with this doctrine. Accordingly Ruffinus (on the corruption 

s Huet. Origeniana. ii. 2. quaest. 2. l a^ne Qcavas ^Ktcrra Trpfirovcra.* r 

n. 10. [p. 122.] irvf6fMTi. [Ep. ix. 2. t. iii. p. 91.] 

His writings full of testimonies to the Godhead of the Son. 183 

of the books of Origen) wrote thus of Clement u ; " Clement, BOOK n. 
a presbyter of Alexandria and catechist 1 of that Church, in Y, 2 
almost every one of his books declares the glory and eternity CLEM. AL. 
of the Trinity to be one and the same." Out of this so great 1 magister. 
store we will select some of the more marked passages. 

2. Not far from the opening of his Protrepticon, or Ex 
hortation to the Gentiles, Clement cites x that notable pas 
sage of Paul, out of his Epistle to Titus, ii. 1113: "The 
grace of God, that bringeth salvation, hath appeared 2 unto all 2 
men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, 
we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this pre 
sent world ; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious 
appearing 3 of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ :" 3 
and understands by the designation of the great God/ in 
this passage, our Saviour Christ to be meant ; subjoining 
these most beautiful words ; " This is the new song, the 
Epiphany 4 , which hath now shone forth amongst us, of that 
Word, who was in the beginning, and who was before ; and 
now of late hath He appeared, the Saviour who was before ; 
He who is in Him that is hath appeared, in that the Word, 
who was with God, by whom all things were made, hath ap 
peared our Instructor ; the Word, who at the first gave unto 
us life, when He had moulded us as Creator; manifesting 
Himself as our Instructor, hath taught us good life, that [242] 
afterwards, as God, He might bestow upon us eternal life." 88 
Here Clement recognises our Saviour Christ as eternal, " ex 
isting," that is, "in the beginning and before [the begin 
ning] ;" as coiisubstantial with the Father, as being " Him 
that is in Him that is," that is to say, subsisting in the very 
essence of God the Father; and, lastly, as " God, the Giver of 
the present life and of everlasting life." In the same book 
he exhorts the Gentiles to believe in the Son, in these y 

u Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter rb %fjv eV apxp A i6T T0 ^ ^Aatrat irapa- 
et magister illius ecclesige, in omnibus a"xcov &s 877^:0 up7&s, rb eS %fjv iSlSaj-tv, 
pene libris suis, Trinitatis gloriam at- cTrupavels ws SiSacr/caAos, tVa rb aet fjv 

r). p. 6. [p. 

que seternitatem unam eandemque de- v&Tfpov &s ebs 

signal, [p. 50.] 7.] 

x Tovr6 f<TTL TO acrjua rb Kcuvbv, f] - v TriffTevcrov, tivOpcairf, avOpdoirw Kal 

^ vvv e/fAa^uxJ/ao-a ev r]/Mt/ rov ea?" TriVreixrov, &v6p(air, TCJJ ira.Odi Ti, 

T y Ka \ Trpo6vros \6yov. eVe- Kal TrpoffKvvov^^ui 6<j5 WVTI TriffTtv- 

5e evayxos 6 irpo^ov <ToaT f]p 67re- (rare, ol 3oGAoi, tcp veKp<3 Travres Q.V- 

ev T(f uvn &v, OTL 6 \6yos, %s ?jv Opwiroi Triff rcixra.rf fj,6f(p rep -rravroiv av- 

irpbs rbu &fbj/, StSatr/caAos (trffydvr), & Qp&wwv 0e^J. p. 66. [p. 84.] 
ra -navTa. SediifjLiovpyriTai. \6yos, 6 Kal 


The Word called God, and, very God. 



1 halluci- 


2 Verum 
Deum ma- 

ix. 6.] 

* natus. 

words; (in the translation of which Hervetus 2 , as is usual 
with him, blunders 1 miserably; the passage ought to be 
turned thus ;) " Believe, O man, in [Him who is] man and 
God ; believe in Him that suffered and is worshipped, the 
living God ; ye slaves, believe in Him, who was dead ; 
all ye men believe in Him, who is the only God of all 
men." In these words he pronounces Christ to be God as 
well as man, the living God who is worshipped, (which is 
a manifest circumlocution for the true God,) and [who is] 
in short, the only God of all men. 

3. What again can be more noble than those words which 
we read in the same book, in the next page but one ? there 
Clement calls our Saviour a , "The divine Word, who truly 
is the most manifest God, made equal to the Lord of all ; 
because He was His Son, and [because] the Word was in 
God b ." He employs words so emphatic that he seems to 
have used his utmost endeavour to express fully the supreme 
Godhead of the Saviour. He calls Christ the divine Word, 
very God, very God most manifest 2 , equal to God the Father; 
and he subjoins this as a reason, that He is the Son of God, 
that is, true Son born of Himself; and that He is the Word, 
subsisting in God Himself. Again, in his Psedagogus, i. 5, 
near the end, after observing that the greatness of the Son of 
God is declared by Isaiah, namely, in these words, " Wonder 
ful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the 
Prince of Peace," he immediately subjoins ; " O the mighty 
God ! O the perfect Child ! the Son in the Father, and the 
Father in the Son." Afterwards in the sixth chapter of the 
same book he speaks of the Son as d " the perfect Word, 
born 3 of the perfect Father," that is to say, the Son corre 
sponds to His Father, of whom He was begotten 4 , in every 
kind of perfection. The reader would find it worth while to 
weigh attentively this entire passage in Clement s own book. 

z [Hervetus (Gentianus), Canon of 
Rheims, is the avithor of the Latin 
translation, which Potter has retained 
in his edition of Clement s works.] 

o 6e?os \6yos 6 (pavepuTaros ovTcas 
&ebs, 6 T(f SecrTrJrr? riav o\(av ei<ro>0eiV 
on "f]v vlbs avrov, ical 6 \6yos i\v eV rep 
0e. p. 68. [p. 86.] 

i> [See these words again quoted in 
Book iv. 2. 4. B. Bp. Bull translated 
these words, (6 (pai/fpcaraTOS OI/TUS &fbs,) 

" qui est manifestissime verus Deus," 
"who is most manifestly the true 
God ;" (as did also Dr. Burton in his 
Testimonies to the Divinity of Christ, 
p. 148.)] ^ 

<a TOV /jieyaXov eoG 1 d> TOV re- 

\LOV TraiOlOV vlbs V TTUTpl, Kttl TTttT^jp 

fr vi$. p. 91. [p. 112.] 

d rbv \6yov reAetoc, e/c reAe/ou fyvv- 
ra TOV Trarpds. p. 92. [p. 113.] 

The attributes of God assigned to the Word and Holy Ghost. 185 

After a considerable interval, he in the same chapter utters BOOK n. 
a full and perfect confession of the most holy Trinity in these ^^^ 
words 6 ; "One, first, is the Father of all things; and one CLEM. AL 
also is the Word of all things ; and the Holy Ghost is one 
and the same in every place " Observe, how to each several 
Person of the Holy Trinity he attributes divine energy, such [244] 
as to pervade all things 1 ; the first Person being the Father 
of all things 2 , the second being in like manner the Word of 
all things 2 , and, lastly, the third being present every where 2 univer- 
and in all. Furthermore, in the seventh chapter of the sorum - 
same book, he thus speaks concerning Christ the Instructor 
(Pcedagogusy ; "But our Instructor is the holy God Jesus, 
the Word who is the Guide of the entire human race ; 
Himself, the God who loveth man, is our Instructor." 

4. Also throughout the eighth chapter of the same book, 
he is taken up in proving that all the attributes of God the 
Father, (those, I mean, which are absolute ,) are common to 
Him with the Son, by reason of the divine nature which 
belongs to both alike, and that whatsoever is predicated of 
the Father is also applicable to the Son. The whole chapter 
indeed deserves to be read, but it may be enough for me to 
point out a few passages to the reader. He proves that Christ 
hates no man, but rather desires the salvation of all, by the 
following argument 11 ; "If therefore the Word hates any 
thing, He wishes that it should not exist ; there is, however, 
nothing of which God doth not afford the cause of its exist 
ing ; nothing therefore is hated of God, nay, nor yet of the 
Word ; for Both are One 3 , [that is,] God." Then, after treat- 3 I*, 
ing fully out of the Scriptures concerning the primary attri 
butes of God, that is to say, goodness and justice, and after 
shewing that they equally belong to the Father and the Son, he 

e els / 6 TO>V 6\cav Tlar-fjp efs Se &e6s earn trai&aytoyos. p. 109. [p. 

Kal 6 rcai> 6\<av A.6yos Kal rb Uvev/j.a 131.] 

rb ayiov ev, Kal rb avrb iravraxov. [Because some are relative, e.g. 

[Bp. Bull translated these words, " et to be the Father of our Lord Jesus 

Spiritus Sanctus unus, qui et ipse est Christ, &c.] 

ubique," " and the Holy Ghost one, h elf TI &pa /Aitre? 6 \6yos, jSouAerat 

who Himself also is every where," and avrb (JLTJ efi/uf ouSei/ Se ecr-riv, ov pr) TV 

it will be seen argues from that trans- alriav TOV elicit 6 fbs -rrapex^raf ovSei/ 

lation.] p. 120. [p. 123.] fya /ito-errat virb TOV 0eoC aAA ouSe 

1 6 Se ^ue repos Traidaycaybs Hyios virb TOV \6yoV e> yap afjupa}, 6 e6s. 

fbs Irjcrovs, 6 irdfffjs TTJS avdpcair6Tr]TOS p. 113. [p. 135.] 
\6yos avrbs 6 (f>i\dvdpcairos 

186 Acknowledgment of the Son, and of the whole Trinity. 
ON THE thus at length concludes ; <c So that in very truth 1 it is evi- 


dent that the God of all is one only, good, just, the Creator, the 


LITY OF Son in the Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." 
And here the reader who has any sense whatever will not need 

any one to suggest it in order to perceive, that the Son, in 
the Father, and with the Father, is declared to be God of all, 
7 " who alone is good, and just, and the Creator of all things, 
and to whom accordingly should be ascribed glory for ever 
more. Again he makes use of these very magnificent ex 
pressions concerning the Son of God k ; " For he that hath 
*6- THE ALMIGHTY GOD THE WoRD 2 , is in need of nothing, 
yov ex<* v - an( j never i s at any time without supply of that which He 
wants; for the Word is a possession that needeth nothing, 
and the cause of all abundance 1 ." Lastly, at the end of his 
Psedagogus, he thus prays to the Word or Son of God, 
together with the Father 01 ; "Be Thou merciful to Thy 
children, O Instructor, Thou, O Father, charioteer of Israel, 
Son and Father, Both One, O Lord ;" and soon afterwards 
pours forth praises to the most holy Trinity in the following 
form : " Let us give thanks," he says, " to the alone Father 
and Son, Son and Father, the Son our Instructor and 
Teacher, together with the Holy Ghost also ; all things to 
3 8r 6v. the One; in whom are all things; through whom 3 all things 
4 Si 5v. are one ; through 4 whom is eternity 5 ; whose members all 
6 r *> ae L - are ; whose glory are the ages n 6 ; all things to the Good, 
"" all things to the Lovely, all things to the Wise ; all things to 
the Righteous ; to Him be glory both now and unto all ages. 
[246] Amen." That man is blind in mid-day light, who does not 

CDS ftvat Tats aXtiOtiais Karacpaves irvev/LiaTt trdvra T< kv i ef co ra irdvta 

"rb TUV ffv^jLivdvTcav Qebv eva JJ.OVQV flvai, 5t $>v Ta irdvTa eV Si $>v T O aet ov 

ayadbv, SiKaiov, Sfj/uLiovpybv, vlbv tv ira- /ueA/rj Trdvres ov 5o |a, alwvss irdi>Ta TW 

Tpl, <f TJ 5o|a ets TOVS alutvas TOOV altt>- aya6<, Trdvra T< Ka\<p, irdvTa T< (rocfxp, 

V(av, Afj.T]i>. p. 119. [p. 142.] TO? 5iKai(t> ra Trdvra (j> fi S6a Kal vvv 

k ajsevSerjs yap 6 rbv iravTOKpdropa Kal ets rovs alcovas, A/xTjv. p. 266. [p. 

ebv \6yov excoi/, Kal ovSevbs, wv XPP~ 311.] 

fct, aTrope? TTore /CTJ)<TJS yap 6 \6yos n [Cujus sunt gloria ets&cula, whose 

ai/ei/Se^s, Kal eviropias a7rarrr;s atrios. are the glory and the ages, is Bp. 

Paedagog. iii. 7. p. 236, 237. [p. 277.] Bull s version of this clause; on this 

1 [Bp. Bull quotes this passage of GRABE observes; "I think it should 

Clement again in his answer to G. rather be translated cujus gloria sunt 

Clerke, 8. B.] seecula ; whose glory are the celestial 

m i\aQi To7s (Toils, Traifiaytoye, irai- spirits, or the angels. For which sig- 

Siois, Traryp, yvioxe lo-pai)\, vie Kal nification of the word alantes, see what 

Trarfyp, ev afj-cpw, Kupie. . . . rep fjiovcp I have noted on Irenaeus, p. 9. numb. 

Trarpl KOI vi$, vitp Kal irarpl, TraiSaywyy 2." (p. 32. Var. Annot. in edit. Bene- 

Kal SiSacrKd\ci} vi(p avv Kal T<j5 ayitp diet.)] 

Testimonies from the Stromata. 187 

clearly see that in this doxology is contained a full and per- BOOK n. 
feet acknowledgment of the Trinity of one substance, that c " ^L^ 1 
is to say, of one God subsisting in three Persons, the Father, CLEM. AL. 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

5. But that I may not appear to have altogether neglected 
the books of the Stromata, I shall here adduce one or two 
passages out of them. In the fourth book he thus speaks con 
cerning Christ ; " Thus the Lord draws near unto the righte 
ous, and nothing is hid from Him of our thoughts, and of 
the reasonings which we entertain?; the Lord Jesus, I mean, 

who, according to His almighty will, is the inspector 1 of eV^Ko*/ 
our hearts." These words need no comment. In the 
seventh book, in treating of the divinity of the Word, or Son 
of God, every where present, and having a care for all things, 
even the least, he illustrates it with this most apposite and 
elegant similitude^ ; " For even as the sun not only enlightens 
the heaven and the whole world, shining both on land and 
sea; but also sends its light through windows and the little [247] 
crevice into the innermost recesses of the house; so the 
Word, shed abroad everywhere, looks upon the most minute 
portions of the actions of life." There are, indeed, many more 
passages from Clement, which I might have added to these ; 
but one who is not satisfied with these, nothing will satisfy. 

6. Let us now see what Petavius and the other over- 
critical censurers of the holy Fathers, (not to call them by 
a worse name,) have brought forward out of Clement, in 
opposition to these so clear and express statements, in order 
to prove that he was infected in some degree with the taint 
of Arianism. The first passage which Petavius r alleges is 
from the seventh book of the Stromata, in which Clement 
writes thus concerning the Son of God 8 : " Most perfect, in 
deed, and most holy, and most lordly, and most command 
ing, and most royal, and most beneficent is the nature of 

OUTCOS e yyifet rots Siitaiois 6 Kv- q ovTrzp yap Tp6irov b %\LOS ov fj.6vov 

pios, Kal ouSev \e\rj6ev avrbu ra>v eV- rbv ovpavbv Kal rbv o\ov K<br/iOP (pwTifci, 

voi&v Kal riav 5ia\oyL(r/j.>v wv iroiov^Qa, yyv re /cat GaXacrirav eViAa 1 u7ra>i , aAAa 

rbv Kvpiov Irja-ow \eyca, rbv T< TTOI/TO- Kal Sta dvpiSuv Kal piKpas OTTTJS irphs 

KparopLKq) fleArj/xaTt ivlffttovov TTJS /cap- TOUS ^u^aiTCtTous ofaovs airo<TTe\\ei T^*/ 

Stay TjfjMV. p. 517. [p. 611.] avyf)V OVTCDS 6 \6yos iravrri K^V^VOS 

P [The words fyylffei (eyyvs eVrt in /cat TO. o-/jiiKp6TaTa TWV rov fiiov irpd^wv 

S.^ Clement ^of Rome) TO?S 5i/caiojs 6 &rij8A.r. p. 711. [p. 840.] 

Kvpios, Kal ovfiev AeATjflei/ aurbi/ ru>v iv- r De Trin. i. 4. 1. p. 702. 

voicav Kal ru>v Sia\oyi(T/j.wv S>v iroiov- * TeAetcoTaT?; Sij, Kal aywrdT-r], KOI 

fj.e0a, arc taken from Clement of Rome, Kvpiurd-rf], Kal riyf/JLoviKUTdrri, Kal /8a- 

c. 21. B.j triAi/cooTOTij, Kal evepyeTiKUTdni T] vlov 

188 Passages objected to by Petavius explained, and their 

ON THE the Son, which is most closely conjoined 1 with the alone 
S^TNTIA" Almighty." For thus I conceive the word Trpoaexeo-rdrrj [in 
LITY OF the last clause! should be translated; in the sense in which 

THE SON. . . , . , ,, . 

- things which are most near to, and coniomed with, any thing, 


conunc- , . ., 

tissima. and immediate cause , are called Trpoo-e^ by philosophers 1 . 

2 conjuncta Petavius makes this remark, however, on the passage : " He 
causa im- says the nature of the Son is most near 3 to Almighty God ; 
mediata. which savours of the spirit of the Platonic arid the Arian 
esse. md dogmas. But the nature of the Son is not most near to, but 
identical with the Father." And I suppose Huet had this 
[248] passage, cited by Petavius, in view, when he declared " that 
it was laid down by Clement that the substance of the 
Son is inferior to that of the Father." The answer, how- 
90 ever, is easy. In this passage the divine nature of the Son 
is viewed by Clement not absolutely, but relatively, or per 
sonally, as they express it, [i. e.] so far forth as it con- 
4 F\\uvir6- stitutes the Person 4 of the Son; for 5 the word Averts, as 
araffiv. a j go ^ wor( j ota-la^ is sometimes used by ancient writers to 
signify Person. (See chap. ix. sect. 11, of this book.) So 
that Clement is to be regarded as having meant nothing else 
than that the Son is most intimately conjoined with His 
Father. And what harm, I ask, is there in this ? At any rate 
Gregory Nyssen in his Epistle to Ablabius, without incur 
ring any blame, designated the Son as " that u which is Trpo- 
o-e^ws, most nearly, continuously, or (in other words) im- 
6 6 > K . mediately [derived] from 6 the first [cause]," that is, from 

God the. Father. But even if you were to understand 
Clement in this passage to attribute the first place to the 
Father, and the second to the Son what is there new in 
7 lxV this? Indeed that there is a certain eminency 7 appertain 
ing to the Father, inasmuch as He is the fountain of Deity 
8 Princi- and the principle of the Son 8 , the Scriptures throughout 
Filii. testify, and the fathers acknowledge with one consent, both 
ante-Nicene and Nicene, and those also who wrote subse 
quently to that council ; as we shall afterwards shew in its 
proper place x . It is certain, however, that Clement did not 
at all mean that the substance of the Son is inferior to that 

<py<m, T) T$ fj.6vcp travroKparopi irpotre- quod proxime, contiuenter, sive im- 

XrTdTi). [p. 831.] mediate est ex primo. Oper., torn. ii. 

1 [See the answer to Gilb. Clerke, p. 459. [vol. iii. p. 27. See above, p. 

19.] 232, note z.] 

u rb irpocrtx&s ^K rov irpcarov, id x [Book iv.] 

Catholic sense shewn by the context and other passages. 189 

of the Father. The many passages which we have already BOOK n. 
adduced, in which he (if any ancient writer whatever) most CH ^ " 
openly acknowledges the consubstantiality of the Son and CLEM.AL. 
His true divinity, are inconsistent with this notion ; indeed, 
the context of this passage itself is inconsistent with it. For 
in the words which immediately follow, Clement speaks with 
exceeding honour 1 (as Petavius himself observes) concerning ] perquam 
the Son of God, attributing to Him these primary attributes honorifice - 
of Deity, indivisibility, unchangeableness, eternity, omnisci 
ence, and omnipresence. But especially is it to be remarked, 
that in the self-same passage, the Son is designated by 
Clement, as being " entirely the mind 2 , entirely the light of [249] 
the Father ;" which words certainly do plainly declare the 2 8\os 
common nature of the Father and the Son?. 

7. Furthermore, Petavius alleges the following words of 
Clement, occurring after a short interval, in the same book 2 ; 
1 Nor could the Lord of all be ever restrained by another, es 
pecially in ministering to 3 the will of His good and almighty 3 Ka \ ^ 
Father:" but what darkness has this very learned man here Xl(TTa *t v - 


made in a clear sky ! Let every lover of truth peruse the 
words of Clement which precede and follow, and he will 
wonder, I am sure, what has here come into Petavius s mind. 
Throughout the passsage Clement is intent upon shewing 
that Christ is the common Saviour, and promotes the sal 
vation of all men, so far as in Him lies, saving always the 
liberty of the human will. Now he says that no crea 
ture is able to hinder Christ in bringing about the salva 
tion of mankind, since He is Lord of all; moreover that 
the Father, who is also together with the Son the Lord of 
all, wills not to hinder Him ; inasmuch as in this work the 
Son is fulfilling the Father s will. Clement asserts the 
same, (and the expression is approved of by Petavius 
himself,) when he calls a the Son " the true Comrade 4 4 <rway<a- 
with the good-will of God towards man." Lastly Petavius 
alleges a passage of Clement, Strom, iv. b : " God, then, 

y [See this passage of Clement again /J.O.TI narp6s. p. 703. [p. 832.] 
quoted and defended in Bp. Bull s Re- a TTJS TOV 0eoD <pi\a.vQp<airias ffvva- 

ply to G. Clerke, 24. B.] you/iarr^s yvycrios __ Paedagog. i. 8. p. 

1 irepou /cwAuflen? iror Uv 6 114. [p. 136.] 


Kvpios, Kal p.a\iara e|t>7n7peTo>i/ t ^ yuev ovv ebs avair68eiKTOs &v 

T(f TOV ayadov Kal TravTOKparopos Of\Tj- OVK ecrrtj/ TriffTT)noi iK6s 6 Se uibs <ro- 

190 Further objections answered ; twofold usage of KTI^LV. 

as not being within the range of demonstration 1 , is not 
within that of knowledge 2 j but the Son is wisdom, and 
knowledge, and truth, and whatsoever else is akin to this ; 
an( j especially also admits both of demonstration and expli- 
cation 3 ." It is, however, manifest, that Clement in these 
a OVK eVi- words meant nothing else than that God the Father can- 

^2501 S no ^ ^7 an y ^ e f un( ^ out4 an( ^ known immediately and by 
Himself 5 , but is revealed by 6 the Son, who, as the Word of 

*x Kal God made flesh, hath revealed both Himself and His Father 

4 cognosci to men > according to their capacity. Now if this be Arianism, 

5 per se. I fear that the Apostle John himself, will at last be called 
*P er - an Arian ; for, in his Gospel, i. 18, he has written thus, 

" No man hath seen God at any time ; the Son, who is in 
the bosom of the Father, He hath revealed Him." Nay 
more, in the same passage, in the very next words, Clement 
with a single stroke, as it were, gives a death-blow to all 
the Arian blasphemies, when he says of Christ, that He is 
an infinite circle, comprehending within Himself alone all 
the virtues and powers of the Godhead, immense, and, in 
7 existendi. fine, eternal, having neither beginning nor end of being 7 . 
We shall quote the passage afterwards in the third book. 
You see how frivolous are the points which Petavius has 
alleged against our Clement. 

8. Others also have censured him for having somewhere c 
called the Son of God "the first created Wisdom 8 * 3 ." But 
this likewise is altogether to no purpose. For in that 
passage of Clement it is evident that the word KTLCTTOS 
(created) means the same as 76^777-09 (begotten) ; as also in 
[251] Latin the word creare (to create), is put for gignere (to 
beget) ; as Sulmone creatos, i. e., progenitos Certainly 
from what has been already brought forward out of his 
own writings, it is clearer than noon-day that Clement did 
not believe the Son of God to be a creature. I shall here 
subjoin the words of that great man Hen. Valesius ; " At all 

fyia re eo-rl, Kal eTntrHj/^, Kal a\j)6eia, 68oav avrov ets epya UVTOV, " The Lord 

/col 6ca &\\a rovTCf) crvyyevrj, Kal 8^ created me in the beginning of His 

/cal fafafiZtv %x* 1 ifal SiftoSov. p. 537. ways, before His works of old (LXX);" 

[p. 635.] as Clement cites these very words in his 

c Strom, v. p. 591. [699.] Hortatory Address, arid explains them 

d No doubt he had in view that pas- of the Word, or Son of God. p. 52. 

sage in Proverbs viii. 22; where Wis- B. C. [p. 67.] GRABE. 

dom says ; Kvpios 

Sandius s objections fromthellypotyposes a spurious work. 191 

events the ancient theologians," he says 6 , " and especially BOOK 
those who wrote before the time of the council of Nice, 79. 

understood by the word KTI&IV, not only the act of creation CLEM. AL. 
which takes place out of nothing, but generally all pro- 91 
duction, as well that which is eternal as that which takes 
place in time." In precisely the same way must that pas 
sage be expounded which Clement cites from the Apocryphal 
books of Peter, in his Stromata vi. f " For God is in truth 
one, who made the Beginning of all things, meaning His first- 
begotten Son." That is, it was usual with the Greeks, as it 
seems, (whom we also imitate in our English,) to say Troieiv 
TtKva, facere liberos for liberos generare ; and thus does the 
author of this last passage explain himself by immediately 
subjoining, "meaning His first-begotten Son 1 ." l /j. w 6w 

9. Lastly SandiusS reproaches Clement with a work which ^" o ^~ 
was formerly extant but is now lost, entitled Hypotyposes, vi6v. 
in which, according to the testimony of Photius, cod. 109, 
there were many germs of Arian heresy 2 , especially in that 2 perfidi<e. 
he numbered the Son of God amongst created beings. But this 
is nothing worth 3 , and is unbecoming a man who has under- 3 nauci. 
taken to give us the very kernel 4 of ancient ecclesiastical his- 4 nucleus. 
tory. For learned men of the present day (and amongst them 
Petavius himself) allow that those blasphemous statements [252] 
[in the Hypotyposes] were by no means Clement s own, 
but foisted on him by some impostor ; and this judgment of 
theirs is abundantly confirmed out of Photius himself; since 
Photius in the same place declares that in these books of 
Hypotyposes it is taught, that matter is eternal; that ideas 
are introduced 5 as it were by determinate decrees; that souls 5 induci. 
pass from body to body ; that many worlds existed previous 
to Adam ; that Eve came forth from Adam not in the way 
the sacred Scriptures relate, but in some unclean way ; that 
angels had connexion with women and raised up children of 
them : moreover, that there were two Words of the Father, 
of which the lesser was seen by men, nay, not even that. 
How contrary all these statements are to the teaching of 

e In his notes on Eusebius, p. 8. [i. rbv Ttpa)T6yovov vl6v. p. 644. [p. 769.] 

. 9.] g Sandius de Script. Eccl., p. 24; 

yap T$ &VTI fffT-lv 6 0eby, t>s and Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 94. 

192 This and other adulterated writings objected to by Ruffinus. 

ON THE Clement, as expressed in his genuine and undoubted writings, 
CONSUB- ^. - g nee di ess to say. Added to which the same Photius, 
LITY OF who otherwise was easily led to entertain the worst sus- 
^- picions of Clement, as being the preceptor of Origen, inti 
mates plainly enough that he did not at all believe these 
statements to be really Clement s, in that he shortly after 
wards adds h , " and a thousand other blasphemies and follies 
does he utter, either himself, or some other person assuming 
his name." Lastly, Photius himself, cod. 110, when treating 
of the three books of the Paedagogus and the Exhortation to 
the Gentiles, which all allow to be genuine works of Clement, 
observes that, whether you look to doctrine or style, these 
works are very unlike the Hypotyposes ; his words are i ; 
"These discourses have no resemblance to the Hypoty 
poses, for they are both altogether free from their foolish 
[253] and blasphemous opinions, and the style is flowery, and 
elevated to a becoming dignity, combined with sweet 
ness, and the manifold learning is befitting." For my 
own part I have no doubt that it was mainly these books 
of the Hypotyposes that Ruffinus had in view, (and per 
haps also the eighth book of the Stromata in the corrupted 
state in which it appeared in some of the copies of his time, 
as Photius has also noticed in the place cited before, cod. 110,) 
and that it was these which he was comparing with all the 
other undoubted writings of Clement, in which the catholic 
doctrine of the most blessed Trinity is uniformly maintained, 
when he used the words (in part cited by me before) con 
cerning him k , " Clement also, presbyter of Alexandria, and 
catechist 1 of that Church, in nearly all his books speaks of 
the glory and eternity of the Trinity, as one and the same 
and yet sometimes we find certain chapters in his books in 

b Kal a\\a Se pvpia ^SAacr^Tj^ie? Kal in omnibus pene libris suis Trinitatis 

(/>Auapet, efre avrds, eire TIS eVepos rb gloriam atque aeternitatem unam ean 

avrov Trp6(Tuirov inroKpiBeis. [Phot. demque designat ; et interdum inveni- 

cod. 109.] mus aliqua in libris ejus capitula, in 

ovSev Se Sfj-oiov exovai irpbs TO.S quibus Filium Dei creaturam dicit. 

vTrorvTT(acreis ovroi of \6yoi. rwv Tf yap Numquin credibile est de tanto viro, 

/j,aTaLu>v Kal fihaa<p-i)iJLwv airy A\ay petto t tarn in omnibus catholico, tarn erudito, 

5o|o>j/ Ka6effT"f)Ka(ri, Kal rj typdffis avBrjpa, ut vel sibi contraria senserit, vel ea, 

Kal et? oyKov ^p/ieV?j (Tv/jLfjLfTpov juera quse de Deo non dicam credere, sed 

rov ^Se ws, Kal r) iro\v/j.ddeia e/jLirpe- vel audire quidem impium est, scripta 

TTOUO-O. [Phot. cod. 110.] reliquerit? Ruffinus de adult., lib. 

k Clemens quoque Alexandrinus Origen. [p. 50.] 
presbyter, et magister ecclesiae illius, 

Tertullian plainly asserts the Consubstantiality of the Son. 193 

which he calls the Son of God a creature. But is it credible 
respecting so great a man, who was so catholic in all points^ 
and so learned, that he either held self- contradictory opi- 
nions, or left behind him in writing statements which it 
were impiety, I will not say to believe respecting God, but 
even to listen to?" And thus far concerning St. Clement 
of Alexandria. 




1. WE have now come to Tertullian 1 . Although this TERTUL- 
writer has been supposed by some to have denied the eternity LIAN 
of the Son, by such, that is, as either have been unable, or 
have not cared to investigate the meaning of an obscure 
author, for I shall hereafter shew that Tertullian, how 
ever he may in some places have expressed himself, did in 
reality acknowledge the eternal existence also of the second 
Person of the most holy Trinity, still has he every where 
uniformly and in the most express terms confessed the con- 
substantiality of the Son. Bead only his single work against 
Praxeas, in which he treats fully and professedly of the most 
holy Trinity ; he there asserts the Consubstantiality of the 
Son so frequently and so plainly, that you would suppose the 
author had written after the time of the Nicene council. We 
shall exhibit to the reader some of the more striking passages 
both out of this book and out of other writings of Tertullian. 
In the twenty-first chapter of his Apology, he says m : "We 
have been taught concerning Him as concerning one put 
forth from God, and by [that] putting forth 2 generated 3 , and l prolatum, 
consequently called the Son of God and God, from UNITY 2 .P rola - 
OF SUBSTANCE, for God also is a Spirit." Here he plainly gen 
infers that the Son is of one substance with the Father, tum 
that is to say, is o^oovaios (consubstantial) with Him, from 

1 Tertullian embraced the Christian mus, et prolatione generatum et id- 

shgion about the year 185. Cave. circo Filium Dei et Deum dictum, ex 


Hunc ex Deo prolatum didici- Spiritus. [p. 19.] 


194 Tertullian s illustrations of the Divine Generation of 



1 ex Patre. 

8 propne. 


3 materiae 

4 traduces 

5 alterum. 

6 modulo. 

7 gradu 
non statu. 

8 illustris. 



the circumstance that He has been generated of the Father 1 . 
His meaning is the same, when, in his book against Praxeas, 
chap. 7, he thus writes concerning the Son of God"; "He 
is the First-begotten, as begotten before all things ; and the 
Only-begotten, as alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar 
to Himself 2 , from the [very] womb of His heart." 

2. Let us, however, consider the similes, by which Tertul- 
lian has attempted, up to a certain point, to explain the gene 
ration of the Son; [for] these manifestly prove His being 
of one substance [with the Father.] In the Apology, after 
the words already quoted, these also follow ; " And when a 
ray of light stretches forth from the sun, [it is] a portion 
from the whole, but the sun will be in the ray, because it 
is a ray of the sun, and the substance is not separated, but 
extended: so is Spirit from Spirit, and GOD FROM GOD, AS 
LIGHT kindled FROM LIGHT : the original source of matter 3 
remains entire and unimpaired, although you borrow thence 
many derivations of [scil. possessing its] qualities 4 ; so also 
what has proceeded from God is God and the Son of God, 
and Both are One : so also [is] Spirit from Spirit, and GOD 
FROM GOD : [This] has made a second 5 in mode 6 , not in 
number ; in gradation, not in state 7 ; and It has not gone 
away from, but has gone forth from Its original source." 
Here you have the very words of the Nicene Creed and a 
meaning also exactly the same. There is also a remarkable 8 
passage in the book against Praxeas, chap. 8 p ; " This," 
says he, " will be the putting forth 9 of [scil. taught by] the 
truth, the guard of the Unity ; whereby we say, that the Son 
was put forth from the Father, but not separated. For God 
put forth the Word, as the root the plant, and the fountain the 
stream, and the sun the ray. For these forms 10 also are put- 

n Primogenitus, ut ante omnia geni- 
tus; et unigenitus, ut solus ex Deo 
genitus. proprie de vulva cordis ipsius. 
[p. 503.] 

Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, 
portio ex summa, sed sol erit in radio, 
quia solis est radius, nee separatur sub- 
stantia, sed extenditur: ita de Spiritu 
Spiritus, et DE DEO DEUS, UT LUMEN 
DE LUMINE accensum: manet integra 
et indefecta materiae matrix, etsi plures 
inde traduces qualitatum mutueris ; ita 
et quod de Deo profectum est, Deus 
est et Dei Filius, et unus ambo ; ita et 

de Spiritu Spiritus, et DE DEO DEUS : 
modulo alterum, non numero, gradu, 
non statu fecit ; et a matrice non re- 
cessit, sed excessit. Apol. c. 21. [p. 

p Haec erit probola veritatis, custos 
unitatis, qua prolatum dicimus Filium 
a Patre, sed non separatum. Protulit 
enim Deus Sermonem, . . . sicut radix 
fruticem, etfonsfluvium, et sol radium. 
Nam et istae species probolae sunt 


prodeunt. [p. 504.] 

the Son imply His Consubstantiality. 195 

tings forth 1 OF THOSE SUBSTANCES, out of which they come BOOK n. 
forth." Parallel to this is another passage of the same book, ^Ls" 
chap. 13 q ; "I shall follow the Apostle/ he says, "so that, if 

the Father and the Son are to be mentioned together 2 , 1 shall LIAN - 

call the Father God, and name Jesus Christ Lord. But 
when Christ is [mentioned] alone, I shall be able to call Him 2 pariter. 
God, as the same Apostle says, Of whom is Christ, who Rom - ix - 
is over all, God blessed for ever/ For a ray of the sun also, 
[spoken of] by itself, I should call sun; but if I were speak 
ing of the sun, of which it is a ray, I should not forthwith 
call the ray also sun. For although I make not two suns, 
still I should reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much 
two things, and two forms 3 of ONE UNDIVIDED SUBSTANCE, as 3 species. 
God and His Word, as the Father and the Son." In these [258] 
words he affirms, that Christ is called by the Apostle, " God 
over all, blessed for ever," and distinctly teaches that the 
Father and the Son are of one, and that an undivided, sub 
stance 4 . So also in his third book against Marcion, chap. 6 r , 4 un j us et 
he expressly declares, that " Christ is both the Spirit and THE bstanti 
SUBSTANCE of the Creator," and that "such as knew 5 not the 5 agnove _ 
Father, could not know 6 the Son, by reason of His being OF rmt> 
THE SAME SUBSTANCE 7 ." This, indeed, was the invariable C e^ S 
teaching of Tertullian, as he testifies himself, in his treatise 94 
against Praxeas, chap. 4, where he says 8 , "I derive not the d g^ r s e ^ S " 
Son from any other source, but from THE SUBSTANCE OF THE stantiae 
FATHER." So also in the twelfth chapter of the same book 4 , 
" Still," he says, " I every where hold one substance in three 
coherent [Persons] ." 

3. Hence also in his Treatise " On the Flesh of Christ," 
[in] distinguishing the twofold nature in Christ, the divine 

q Apostolum sequar, ut si pariter Sermonem ejus, quam Patrem et Fi- 

nominandi fuerint Pater et Filius, lium. [p. 507.] 

Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum r [Non negans enim filium] et Spi- 

Christum Dominum nominem. Solum ritum et SUBSTANTIAM Creatoris esse 

autem Christum potero Deum dicere, [Christum ejus], eos qui Patrem non. 

sicut idem apostolus, Ex quibus Chris- agnoverint, nee Filium agnoscere po- 

tus, qui est, inquit, Deus super omnia tuisse, per EJUSDEM SUBSTANTIVE con- 

benedictus in cevum omne. Nam et ra- ditionem [concedas necesse est.] [p. 

dium solis seorsum solem vocabo ; so- 400.] 

lem autem nominans, cujus est radius, Filium non aliunde deduce, sed de 

non statim et radium solem appellabo. SUBSTANTIA PATRIS. [p. 502.] 

Nam etsi soles duos non faciam, tarnen * Caeterum ubique teneo unam sub- 

et solem et radium ejus tarn duas res stantiam in tribus cohffirentibus. [p. 

STANTIJE numerabo, quam Deum et 

196 Tertullian s statements on the Two Natures of Christ ; 

ON THE and the human, in opposition to those who denied the reality 
TANTIA - f tne Flesh of Christ, Tertullian also expressly teaches that 
LITY OF the same Christ, in respect of His more excellent nature, 
is truly God, and of 1 the substance of God; and also, in 


2 ariter regard of His other nature, is in like manner 2 truly man, 
and has truly taken unto Himself the substance of man; 
and, moreover, declares that in the former nature He was 
not born, that is to say was uncreate or not made ; in the 
latter, was born and made. These are his own express state 
ments in the fifth chapter of the forementioned treatise u ; 
3 utriusque " Thus His being classed under each substance 3 exhibited 
census. Him as man and God ; on the one hand born, on the other 
4 non not born 4 ; on the one hand fleshly, on the other spiritual ; 
"* 5 

*rsefor on ^ e one nan< ^ wea k; on the other of surpassing strength 
tem. on the one hand dying, on the other living ; which peculiar 

properties of these conditions, the divine and the human, are 
6 dispuncta distinguished 6 by the equal reality of each nature, by the 
7fi j e same certainty 7 [of the existence] both of the Spirit and 
[259] of the flesh." In this passage a countryman of ours inter 
prets the words " not born" thus, " that is, [not born] of a 
human mother;" but altogether wrongly; for by parity of 
reasoning, Christ might, even as man, be said to be not born, 
i. e., [not born] of a human father. I am, however, quite per- 
8 multum suaded that Tertullian (who gained much 8 from [the study 
of] the Greek ecclesiastical writers) here had in view, and in 
great me*asure transcribed, the celebrated passage of Ignatius, 
out of his Epistle to the Ephesians, which we have before 
quoted x : " There is one Physician," &c. For Ignatius s ex 
pression in that place, yevwjrbs Kal a/yevvrjjos, is rendered 
by Tertullian natus et non natus (" born and not born") ; so 
also Ignatius s aapKiicos K.CLI Trvevfjiarifcbs is in Tertullian 
hinc carneus inde spirit alls (" on the one hand fleshly, on the 
other spiritual") ; what Ignatius expressed by ev craptcl or 
ev avdpa Seos, (" God in flesh," or "in man,") that Ter 
tullian expresses by et Deus et homo (" both God and man") ; 
and lastly, what Ignatius expressed by ev Oavdrw ^wr], (" life 

u Ita utriusque substantiae census ventem. Quae proprietas conditionum, 

hominem et Deum exhibuit ; hinc na- divinae et humanse, oequa utique naturae 

turn, inde non natum ; hinc carneum, utriusque veritate dispuncta est, eadem 

inde spiritalem ; hinc infirmum, inde fide et spiritus et carnis. [p. 310.] 

praefortem ; hinc morientem, inde vi- x See chap. 2. 6 of this Book, [p. 96.] 

probably derived from St. Ignatius. 197 

in death,") that Tertullian expressed by hinc moriens, inde BOOK n. 
vivens (" on the one hand dying, on the other living") ; so that H P 3 V1L 
Tertullian seems to have translated the Greek text of Igna- fieRTuTr 
tins almost verbatim into Latin. And, indeed, several con- LIAN - 
siderations induce me to believe, that in this place Tertullian 
used the words of another, (I mean, of Ignatius,) not his own. 
First, it might justly be thought very strange, if Tertullian 
had by mere chance fallen upon so many of the very words 
of Ignatius, and that just as they were arranged by him in 
continuous antithesis. Secondly, Tertullian, when he uses 
his own mode of expression, uniformly speaks of the Father 
alone, as not born (non natum) / understanding that alone to 
be properly called not born/ which has not sprung from any 
original. But, doubtless, Ignatius s expression ayevvyros, had 
to be rendered with verbal precision non natus ; and Tertullian 
perceived, from the antithesis, that nothing else was meant 
by Ignatius than that Christ, in that He is God, is uncreate ; 
and this he himself also acknowledged. And to this we must 
also add the fact, that that sentence of Ignatius in his Epistle 
to the Ephesians seems to have been regarded as a remark- [260] 
able saying, and of great use against heretics who taught 
blasphemous doctrines respecting the Person of Christ; so 
that it became of very frequent use 1 amongst the doctors celebrem. 
of the Church. Accordingly Athanasius, Gelasius, and Theo- 
doret have all employed it. Hence too, (I may observe in 
passing,) there is a clear refutation of the sophistical argu 
ment of Daille against the Epistles of Ignatius derived from 
the silence of Tertullian ; " Tertullian," he says, " remarks, 
that the Marcionites were premature abortions 2 , in that 2 prseco- 
they called Christ a phantom ; and this he proves from 
the Apostle John. But Ignatius censures their doctrine, so 
that, if Tertullian had had any knowledge of him, he would 
have added his testimony to that of John." To this it is 
replied by that right reverend and most learned prelate of 
ours, Bp. Pearson y, that in the extant writings of Tertul 
lian, he has never quoted, in the exact words, any passage 
from any ecclesiastical author, with the mention of his 
name ; and this I think is most true. And I add this, that 
nevertheless in the passage cited, Tertullian has adopted the 

y Vinci. Epist. Ignat. Part I. c. xi. p. 102. 


All that the Father is, the Son likewise is. 




3 unius 

4 quatenus 

xvi. 15.] 

6 si Crea- 
toris est 
cujus om 

thoughts of Ignatius, and to a great extent his very words, 
suppressing all mention of his name ; and that against those 
who maintained that Christ was a phantom, the same whom 
Ignatius also impugned. I leave this to the judgment of 
the learned, and myself return to the course of my subject. 

4. In harmony with all this is the fact, that Tertullian, in 
more than one place, explicitly declares that the Son, in that 
He is God, is of like honour i with God the Father, and equal 
to Him. Presently we shall hear his own words 2 asserting, 
that all the three Persons of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy. Ghost, as they are of one substance, so are they 
also OF ONE STATED AND OF ONE POWER. And as respects 
the Son, he confesses, in his book against Praxeas, chap. 
17, that all the names and attributes of the Father belong 
also to the Son, so far forth as He is the Son of God. 
His words are 2 ; " The names of the Father God Almighty, 
the Most High, the Lord of Hosts, the King of Israel, He 
that Is inasmuch as 4 the Scriptures so teach, these we say 
belonged also to the Son, and that in these the^Son has come, 
and in these has ever acted, and thus manifested them in 
Himself unto men. ( All things/ He says, that the Father 
hath 5 , are Mine/ Then why not His names also? When 
therefore you read Almighty God, and Most High, and God 
of Hosts, and King of Israel, and He that Is, consider 
whether the Son also be not indicated by these, who IN 
His OWN RIGHT is God Almighty, in that He is the Word of 
God Almighty." There is a still more explicit passage in his 
treatise against Marcion, iv. 25 a ; " All things/ (He saith,) 
are delivered unto Me of the Father/ Thou mayest believe 
Him, if He be the Christ of the Creator, to whom all things 
belong 6 ; since [in that case] the Creator hath [but] de 
livered all things to Him who is not less than Himself to 
the SON : all things [I say] which He created by Him, i. e. 

* Nomina Patris, Deus omnipotens, 
Altissimus, Dominus virtutum, Rex 
Israelis, Ciui est, quatenus ita Scrip- 
turae decent, hsec dicimus et in Filium 
competiisse, et in his Filium venisse, et 
in his semper egisse, et sic ea in se 
hominibus manifestasse. Omnia, inquit, 
Patris mea sunt. Cur non et nomina ? 
Cum ergo legis Deum omnipotentem, 
et Altissimum, et Deum virtutum, et 

Regem Israelis, et Qui est, vide ne per 
haec Filius etiam demonstretur, suo 
JURE Deus omnipotens, qua Sermo 
Dei omnipotentis. [p. 510.J 

a Omnia sibi tradita dicit a Patre. 
Credas, si Creatoris est Christus, cujus 
omnia, (; ed. Par. 1674.) quia NON MI- 
NORI se tradidit omnia FILIO Creator, 
quse per eum condidit, per Sermonem 
scilicet suum. [p. 440.] 

Illustrations of the Divine Relations ; hold good in part. 199 

by His own Word." You may add to these passages the ex- BOOK n. 
press words of Tertullian in his treatise on the Resurrection C A 3 P _5 H 
of the Flesh, chap. 6 b ; "For the Word also is God, who 
being 1 in the form 2 of God, thought it not robbery TO BE ^ . 
EQUAL with God;" and also those in the seventh chapter of tus, [Srrap 
his treatise against Praxeas c ; " Thenceforth making Him 2 XCOI/ ^. 
EQUAL WITH Himself, from whom by proceeding, He became 
His Son ;" and also those words of the same Tertullian in 
the twenty-second chapter of the same work d ; " In saying 
f I and My Father are One 3 / He shews that they are Two 4 , 3 unum. 
whom He MAKES EQUAL 5 and joins together." 

5. And by these statements should be explained those 
expressions which occur in the writings of Tertullian, in 
which he says, that the Son stands in the same relation to 
the Father as a part 6 " to " the sum 7 " or whole, from c portio. 
which it is taken, and, as it were, plucked off 8 . That is to say, 7 
metaphorical expressions of this sort ought not to be pressed 
too closely 9 , but to be interpreted with candour, in a fair and 9 non ad 
good sense, with attention, that is, to the mind and views g^andaT" 
of the author, as they are elsewhere explained with greater [2G2] 
clearness and in unmetaphorical language 10 . In some respects 10 propriis 
the analogy holds good ; in others, however, it is unsuitable 11 . u 
In the following respects it corresponds ; 1. In that, as a part veniens. 
does not, alone and of itself, constitute the whole, so the 
Son also is not the whole of that which is God 12 , but, besides 12 non est 
the Son, other Persons 13 also subsist in the divine essence, omne ld 

(|UOQ GSt 

namely the Father and the Holy Ghost. 2. In that, as a Deus. 
part is taken out of the sum or whole, and the whole is natu- l f aliae . 

* viroffra- 

rally prior to its portions or parts, so the Son also is derived <reis. 
from the substance of the Father, and the Father, as Father, 
is, as it were, naturally prior to the Son. The analogy 
however fails in the following respects; 1. We understand 
by " a portion" that which is divided and separated from the 
whole : the Son, however, is, and ever was, undivided from 
the Father. And this Tertullian uniformly and on all occa 
sions affirms. Thus in a passage already adduced out of his 

b Et Sermo enim Deus, qui in effi- [p. 503.] 

gie Dei constitutus non rapinam exis- d Unum sumus, dicens, Ego et Pater, 

tirnavit FARIARI Deo. [p. 328, 329.] ostendit duos esse, quos ^EQUAT et 

c Exinde eum PAREM sibi faciens, jungit. [p. 513.] 
de quo proccdendo filius factus est. 


In what respect these illustrations fail. 





8 non ex 

3 sed ex 

4 insepa- 

5 par et 


6 plenitu- 
dinis con- 

7 pro tem- 



treatise against Praxeas, chap. 8 e : " The Son, we say, was 
put forth from the Father, but not separated from [Him] ; 
and chap. 9 f : " Keep in mind on all occasions, that I pro 
fess this rule [of faith] , by which I testify, that the Father, 
the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable J from each other ;" 
and chap. 19 ; "We have likewise shewn that in Scrip 
ture two Gods are spoken of, and Lords two ; and yet, that 
they may not be offended at this assertion, we explained 
how that they are not said to be two, in that they are Gods, 
nor yet in that they are Lords ; but two, in that they are 
Father and Son : and this not by separation of substance 2 , 
but from their mutual relation 3 ; since we declare the Son 
to be indivisible and inseparable 4 from the Father." 2. A 
part is less than the whole from which it is taken ; the Son, 
however, is in all respects, (excepting that He is the Son,) 
like, and equal to 5 the Father, and has and possesses all 
that the Father has. This also Tertullian plainly teaches in 
the several passages which we have just now adduced 11 . To 
these may be added an expression in book iii. chap. 6 { of 
his treatise against Marcion, where, after saying, that the 
Son is a portion out of the fulness of the divine essence, he 
soon after expressly adds, that that portion is (< co-sharer of 
the fulness 6 / When, however, Tertullian, in his treatise 
against Praxeas, chap. 14 k , compares together the Father 
and the Son by an analogy derived from the sun, (that is, as 
he expresses it, from the " sum itself of the substance," which 
is in the heavens, the excessive brightness whereof cannot be 
looked on, and its ray, whose brightness is endurable, " tem 
pered as it is by its being only a portion 7 ,") it must be under 
stood (unless you are disposed to charge Tertullian with the 
grossest contradiction) of that economy 1 which the Son of 

e Prolatum dicimus Filium a Patre, 
sed non separatum. [p. 504.] 

f Hanc me regulam professum, qua 
inseparatos ab alterutro Patrem et Fi 
lium et Spiritual testor, tene ubique. 

g Ostendimus etiam duos Deos in 
Scriptura relates et duos Dominos ; et 
tamen ne de isto scandalizentur, ra- 
tionem reddidimus, qua Dei non duo 
dicantur, nee Domini, sed qua Pater 
et Filius, duo; et hoc non ex sepa- 
ratione substantiae, sed ex disposi- 
tione, quum individuum et insepara- 

tum Filium a Patre pronuntiamus. 
[p. 511.] 

h See also iv. 2. 5. 

! [p- 400.] 

[Tertullian s words are; " Sicut 
nee solem nobis contemplari licet, 
quantum ad ipsam substantiae sum- 
mam, quse est in coalis, radium autem 
ejus toleramus oculis pro temperatura 
portionis, quae in terras inde porrigitur." 
p. 508.] 

1 These words of Tertullian may 
also be referred to that condescension 
of the Son, wherein from the [time of J 

Further extracts from Tertullian. 201 

God, out of His great love to the human race, voluntarily BOOK n. 
undertook; by which, that is to say, ever since the fall CH \ VI 
of the first man, He condescended *, and made Himself, TE.RTUL- 
so far as might be 2 , visible to holy men in every age, LIAN - 
and in the fulness of time became man, and held familiar sit 
intercourse with mankind. Nay, I shall hereafter, in the 2 utcunque. 
fourth book, most evidently shew, that this was indeed the 
very mind and view of Tertullian and of the rest of the 
fathers, in those passages in which they prove that He who 
appeared to the patriarchs, was not God the Father Himself, 
but His Son on this ground, that the Father is invisible, 
and cannot be inclosed in space ; whereas the Son is visible, 
and is found to have a local presence 3 . 3 e t in loco 

6. But why dwell on this? Tertullian throughout his writ- re P eriat Br 
ings explicitly confesses the entire Trinity of one substance and 
of one majesty 4 . Thus in the second chapter of his treatise 
against Praxeas, having recited the rule of faith b , he thus et 
proceeds 1 "; "But keeping that prescription inviolate", still regu lam 
some opportunity must be given for reviewing [the statements fidei- 
of the heretics] , with a view to the instruction and protection L 
of certain persons ; were it only that it may not seem that 
each perversion is condemned without examination, and 
prejudged; especially that [perversion,] which supposes it 
self to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot 
believe in one only God in any other way, than by saying, 
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very 
same Person. As if in this way also One were not All, in 
that All are of One, by unity, that is, of substance, whilst 
nevertheless the mystery of the economy is guarded, which 

creation itself He stooped and accom- nihilominus custodiatur oiKovofj.ias sa- 

modated Himself to the things created; cramentum, quse unitatem in Trinita- 

on this point see iii. 9. 10, 11. tern disponit, tres dirigens, Patrem, 

111 Sed salvaista prsescriptione,utique Filium et Spiritum S. ; tres autem non 

tamen propter instructionem et muni- statu, sed gradu ; nee substantia, sed 

tionem quorundam, dandus est etiam forma; nee potestate, sed specie ; UNIUS 

retractatibus locus; vel ne videatur AUTEM SUBSTANTIVE, ET UNIUS STA- 

unaquseque perversitas non examinata, TUS, ET UNIUS POTESTATIS ; quiaunus 

sed praejudicata damnari ; maxime Deus, ex quo et gradus isti, et formae, 

haec, quae se existimat meram verita- et species, in nomine Patris et Filii et 

tern possidere, dum unicum Deum non Spiritus S. deputantur. [p. 501.] 
alias putat credendum, quam si ipsum n [That is, the principle by which a 

eundemque et Patrem et Filium et position that is contrary to the creed is 

Spiritum S. dicat. Quasi non sic quo- thereby determined to be false, without 

que unus sit omnia, dum ex uno om- further examination.] 
nia, per substantiae scil. unitatem, et 

202 Three Persons of One Substance and One Majesty. 

ON THE distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order 
s C TA N NTi B A~- three [Persons], the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; 
LITY OP three, however, not in condition 1 , but in degree ; not in sub- 


~ stance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect 2 : YET or 

1 statu. 


96 inasmuch as it is one God, from whom these degrees, and 

3 status, forms, and aspects 4 are reckoned, under the name of the 

4 8 P ecies Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Where, if 

I mistake not, by the word gradus (degree) he would have 
us understand that order, whereby the Father exists of Him- 
5 prodeat. self, the Son goes forth 5 immediately from the Father, and 
6 procedat. the Holy Ghost proceeds 6 from the Father through the Son ; 
so that the Father is rightly designated the first, the Son 
the second, and the Holy Ghost the third Person of the 
Godhead. And by the expressions forma (forms) and spe 
cies (aspects), he seems to have meant to indicate the dif- 
Miversos ferent modes of subsistence 7 , whereby the Father, the Son, 
^dpl^ls. an d the Holy Ghost subsist in the same divine nature. Be 
that however as it may, it is manifest that in these words all 
the three Persons of the Godhead are laid down to be of one 
8 6paovfflm>s substance and one dignity 8 . And to this should be added 
et ouf OT another passage of the same treatise, chap. 13 ; where he 
9 defini- says p ; "We do indeed distinguish 9 two, the Father and the 
mus - Son, and again Three, with the Holy Ghost, according to 

10 facit. the principle of the [divine] economy, which introduces 10 

number, in order that the Father may not (as you per 
versely infer) be Himself believed to have been born and to 
have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it 

11 tradltum. hath not been so handed down 11 . Still never do we utter from 
[265] our mouth [the words] two Gods, or two Lords, not as if it 

were not true that the Father is God, and the Son is God, 
and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but foras 
much as in earlier times there were two Gods and two Lords 

[The word species is inadequately niarn non ita traditum est. Duos ta- 

represented by "aspect ;" see the use of men Deos et duos Dominos nunquam 

it in the passages quoted above, from ex ore nostro proferimus ; non quasi 

this Treatise, p. 194, note p,and p. 195, non et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et 

note q.] Spiritus S. Deus, et Deus unusquis- 

p Duos quidem definimus, Patrem que; sed quoniam retro et duo Dii et 

et Filium, et jam tres cum Spiritu S. duo Domini prsedicabantur, ut, ubi ve- 

secundum rationem (Economise, quoe nisset Christus, et Deus agnosceretur, 

facit numerum, ne (ut vestra perver- et Dominus vocaretur, quia Filius Dei 

sitas infert) Pater ipse credatur natus et Domini. [p. 507.] 
et passus, quod non licet credi, quo- 

Sandius says that these doctrines were learnt from Montanus. 203 

spoken of, in order that, when Christ came, He might both 
be recognised as God, and be called Lord, being the Son of 6, y 
[Him who is] God and Lord/ Where, by the way, you TERTUL . 
may observe that Tertullian expressly pronounces the Holy HAN. 
Ghost also to be God, equally with the Father and the Son. 
This I remark in opposition to an inconsiderate assertion of 
Erasmus q , to the effect, that for a considerable time, that 
is, until the times of Hilary, the ancient writers never ven 
tured to give the name of God to the Holy Ghost. I might, if 
that were now the question, refute this allegation of Erasmus 
at great length ; but the reader, if he please, can consult Pe- 
tavius on the Trinity, iii. 7. 1, &c. I return to my subject, 
only adding to the passages which have been already cited 
one quotation more from Tertullian, which may be found in 
his tract de Pudicitia, c. 21, where he expressly acknow 
ledges 1 " "The Trinity of THE ONE GODHEAD, the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 

7. Before, however, we pass from Tertullian to other ec 
clesiastical writers, we must detain the reader a short time, 
whilst we refute a strange notion 1 of Sandius. He says it is com 
plain that Tertullian, prior to his falling into the heresy of m 
Montanus, entertained the same opinions as those of Arius, 
concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And 
then on this most idle assumption he argues thus ; " Hence, if 
any thing is found in the writings of Tertullian in favour of the 
doctrine of consubstantiality, the Arians have much more right 
to detract from his authority by alleging his Montanism [as an 
objection to it]," (that is, he means to say, than the Catholics, 
who employ that argument for the purpose of correcting cer 
tain statements of Tertullian respecting the Son of God, which 
appear to them unsound), " as though he had only at last, on [266] 
adopting the views of Montanus, begun to believe in a con- 
substantial Trinity." But on this point this most frivolous 
person is convicted of error by the following very evident 
arguments. First, it is certain that the Catholic doctors who 
preceded both Montanus and Tertullian, whose writings have 
come down to us, did universally hold the consubstantiality 
of the Son, as also of the Holy Ghost, it is certain, I say, 

i In his preface to Hilary. ter, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus. 

* Trinitas UNIUS DIVINITATIS, Pa- [p. 574.] 

204 Tertullian held these doctrines as a Catholic. 

ON THE from the very clear testimonies which I have already quoted 

BTANTIA" fr m them one by one. Tertullian, therefore, first learnt 

LITY OF the doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity from the Catho- 

THE SON. ,. - . . . J 

- he Church, in whose communion he remained for a con- 
J demum. siderable time, and not "at last 1 " from Montanus, to whose 
party he afterwards fell away. Again, in all the works of 
Tertullian, both those which he wrote previously to, as well 
as those which he wrote after, his defection to the heresy of 
Montanus, statements are found which most plainly esta 
blish the doctrine of the Trinity of one substance, as all 
are well aware who have studied his writings, and as the 
passages which have already been adduced fully evidence. 
Furthermore, Tertullian himself, after he became a Mon- 
tanist, although he makes a very ridiculous boast, that he 
had been more assured concerning the mystery of the holy 
Trinity, as also concerning the other heads of the Christian 
religion which appertain to the rule of faith, by the spirit of 
Montanus, than he had previously been through the letter of 
Scripture and the tradition of the Church, still expressly 
allows that he had ever held the self-same belief and view 
concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. His 
words in the second chapter of his treatise against Praxeas 
are clear 8 ; "We indeed," he says, "have ever believed, and 
much more now, as being better instructed by the Paraclete, 
Meducto- who is the bringer down 2 of all truth, do we believe, that 
3 uni cum< there is indeed one only 3 God, but yet under this dispensation, 
which we call the economy, that of the one only God, there 
be also the Son His Word, who came forth from Him," &c. 
[267] Then having recited the rule of faith, he affirms that the 
Trinity of one substance is therein taught. Now that by the 
Paraclete, Tertullian meant the Paraclete of Montanus, (to 
whose guidance, after having deserted the Church, he had 
now surrendered himself,) the learned are agreed, and the 
thing speaks for itself. In conclusion I would have the 
reader at this place to turn again to what has been already 
said concerning Montanus in the first chapter, 15, of this 
book [pp. 83, 84.] 

s Nos vero et semper, et nunc magis, tamen dispensatione, quam oLKovo/miav 

ut instructions per Paracletum, de- dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Filins 

ductorern scilicet omnis veritatis, uni- Sermo ejus, qui ex ipso processerit, 

cum quidem Deum credimus, sub hac &c. [p. 501.] 

tano * 

Sandiuss strange mistakes about Tertullian s works. 205 

8. But the reader should observe the wonderful acquaint- BOOK n. 
ance of Sandius with the writings of the ancients, which he CI A ^ g 1 
has undertaken to criticise. To prove his hypothesis he TERT UL _ 
makes use of this argument, that those doctrines which LIAN - 
savour of Arianism, are mainly to be discovered in those 97 
works of Tertullian, " which Jerome does not enumerate 
amongst those which he wrote in defence of Moiitanus 1 , 
yea, which he must necessarily have written before he lapsed 
into Montanism, such as are his treatises against Praxeas 
and Hermogenes." But, in the first place, we have shewn 
above * that in his book against Praxeas the consubstantiality 
of the Son, which is opposed enough to the Arian heresy, is 
taught most frequently and most explicitly. Secondly, so far 
is it from being necessary, that it is manifestly untrue, that 
Tertullian wrote his treatise against Praxeas before he lapsed 
into Montanism. For Tertullian himself expressly professes, 
and that in this very treatise against Praxeas, that even at the 
time he was writing, he was already dissevered from "the car 
nal 2 ," as he called them, that is from the catholics, and had ci f ychi ~ 
joined himself to the party of Montanus. For not far from the [268] 
opening of his treatise, he thus writes 11 : " For when the bishop 
of Rome was on the point of acknowledging the prophecies 
of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and in consequence 
of that acknowledgment was introducing peace among the 
Churches of Asia and Phrygia, this very same man (Praxeas), by 
false representations about the prophets themselves and their 
assemblies, and by upholding the example of his predecessors 
as an authority 3 , induced him both to recall the letter of peace 4 3 prices- 

sorum auc 

* To the very many testimonies of Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, ht . eras 

Tertullian which have already been tres efficit coheerentes, alterum ex al- P acis - 

quoted in this chapter from the treatise tero. Qui tres unum sint, non unus ; 

against Praxeas, in support of the con- quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater 

substantiality of the Son, I add a pas- unum sumus ; ad substantiae unilateral, 

sage, out of the same treatise, c. 25. non ad numeri singularitatem.) Com- 

Lp. oloj, concerning the Holy Trinity, pare also what is adduced in the fol- 

which is especially worthy of attention : lowing chapter, 8. 4. GRABE. 

Thus the connection of the Father in Nam idem (Praxeas) tune epi- 

the Son, and of the Son in the Com- scopum Romanum agnoscentem jam 

forter, produces three [Persons] co- prophetias Montani, Prises, Maxi- 

herent one to another. These three millae, et ex ea agnitione pacem ec- 

[Persons] (tres) are one thing (unum), desiis Asise et Phrygiae inferentem, 

not one Person (unus} ; as it is said, I falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis 

i My lather are one (unum); with eorum adseverando, et preecessorum 

respect to unity of substance, not sin- ejus auctoritates defendendo, coegit et 

?ulanty of number." (Ita connexus literas pacis revocare jam emissas, et a 

206 Truths held in common by Montanus and the Church. 

ON THE which he had already issued, and to desist from his inten- 
TA N N S TiA- ti 011 f recognising the gifts 1 . Thus did Praxeas manage at 
LITY OF Rome two affairs of the devil ; he thrust out prophecy, and 
brought in heresy ; he put the Paraclete to flight, and cruci- 

1 recipien- 

dorum cha- fied the Father." Tertullian, you observe, was so incensed 
rismatum. w ^ Praxeas, as to say, that he had herein been managing 
the devil s business, in advising the bishop of Rome to re 
pudiate Montanus with his followers, and their prophecies. 
Tertullian, then, was not only at that time a Montanist, but 
zealot for that sect. And in the same treatise you may read 
shortly after x ; " And the recognition and defence of the Para 
clete dissevered us also from the carnally-minded." As to the 
allegation that Jerome does not enumerate the treatise against 
Praxeas amongst the works which Tertullian wrote in de- 
2 pro Mon- fence of Montanus 2 , my answer is, that a clear distinction 
must be made between those works which Tertullian, when 
already a Montanist, wrote specifically in defence of Mon 
tanus against the Church, and those which he composed, as 
a Montanist indeed, yet not in defence of Montanus against 
the Church, but rather in defence of the common doctrines 
of the Church and of Montanus, in opposition to other here 
tics. In the former list Jerome puts the treatises de Pudi- 
citia, de Jejuniis, de Monogamia, de Ecstasi; we have given 
the clearest proofs, that the treatise against Praxeas belongs 
to the latter class. This, however, is enough for the present 
concerning Tertullian. 




CAIUS. 1. I NOW come to those ecclesiastical writers who lived near 
est to the age of Tertullian. There was extant in the time of 

proposito recipiendorum charismatum fugavit,et Patrem crucifixit. [p. 501.] 

concessare. Ita duo negotia Diaboli x Et nos quidem agnitio Paraded 

Praxeas llomae procuravit ; prophetiam atque defensio disjuuxit a psychicis. 

expulit,ethseresim intulit; Paracletum [Ibid.] 

Testimonies from Caius and St. Hippolytus. 207 

Photius a work entitled, Trepl rov Tlavros, (On the Universe,) BOOK n. 
which some persons very absurdly attributed to Josephus 1,2. 
the Jew, others to Justin Martyr, and some again to Irenseus, CAIUS. 
Photius 7 also reports. Photius, however, correctly followed the 
view of those who handed down a tradition that the work was 
really written by the presbyter Caius, who was the author 
of a celebrated treatise called the Labyrinth, and nourished z 
chiefly in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, as Caius 
himself at the end of the Labyrinth has left it on record, that 
he was the author a of a book on the Nature of the Universe. 
However, how consistently in all respects with the catholic 
doctrine this author wrote concerning the true Godhead of 
Christ, Photius informs us in the following terms b ; " How 
ever, respecting the Divinity of Christ our true God, he treats 
most accurately 1 , both declaring the appellation itself to be- l &>s *y- 
long to Christ, and describing irreprehensibly His ineffable j^~ deo ~ 
generation from the Father." But Caius certainly would not [270] 
have been regarded, at least in the judgment and under the 
criticism of Photius, as treating most accurately 2 and irre- 2 aptis- 
prehensibly of the true Divinity of our Saviour, and of His sime< 
ineffable generation, if any thing had fallen from him which 
would make for the Arians, or would be inconsistent, even 
in appearance, with the consubstantiality of the Son. It is 
therefore on most just grounds that we class this writer 
amongst those who assert and maintain the catholic faith 
of Nicsea. 

2. After the presbyter Caius we must place next 3 St. Hippo- HIPPOLY- 
lytus the martyr c , and bishop of Portus, (as we learn from a^centu 
Anastasius the librarian), who nourished during the reign of riandus. 
the Emperor Alexander, the son of Mammea, i. e., about the 

y In his Bibliotheca, cod. 48. b irepl ^v rot XpLvrov rov 

z Caius flourished about the year 6eou VHMOV ws eyyiara fleoAoye?, K\ri<riv 

210. Cave. BOWYER. Te avr^v ava^Q^yyo^vos Xpiarov, Kal 

a Caius wrote a work On the Na- T^V e /c Uarpbs &<ppao-rov y*vvr\aiv o/ie>- 

ture of the Universe, (Uepl rys rov irrws avaypdQuv. [Biblioth. cod. 48.] 

ira.vr bs ovfftas,) as he has himself left c [Jerome and Theodoret mention 

on record, at the conclusion of his Hippolytus as a martyr; and it has 

book entitled the Labyrinth , as tran- been supposed, that he suffered either 

scribed by Photius. Whether, however, in the Decian persecution in 250, or in 

that work is the same as that which that of Maximus in 235. According 

bears the title, Flepl rov travrbs, On to either of these dates we may safely 

the Universe, and is commonly ap- follow Lardner, in considering him to 

pended to the writings of Hippolytus, have flourished about the year 220. 

is uncertain. Cave. BOWYER. [See Dr. Burton, Test., vol. i. 244.1 

Routh, Reliq. Sacr. ii. p. 31. B.] 

208 Sandius objects to the genuineness of the tract of Hippolytus. 



3 ovaiav. 

4 illustris. 



7i(TTa #60- 



year of Christ 220. He in his Opuscula, written against 
Beron and Helix d , which are found in the Collectanea of Ana- 
stasius, accurately distinguishes the twofold nature in Christ, 
and shews that His divine nature is absolutely the same as 
that which is in the Father. For he says, that 6 "Christ 
both is, and is conceived to be, as well infinite 1 God as cir- 
cumscribed 2 man, possessing perfectly the perfect substance 3 
of each." To the same author belongs the following noble 4 
confession touching the natures of Christ, the divine and the 
human, than which none more express or significant was ever 
put forth by any one, even after the Nicene council. " For 
the Godhead 5 ," he says f , " as it was before His incarnation, is 
also after His incarnation, by nature infinite, incomprehensi 
ble, impassible, incapable of being compounded, unchangeable, 
unalterable, self-powerful, and in a word, having a substantial 
existence 6 , alone a good of infinite power." Nor will any one 
wonder that Hippolytus should have put forth these so clear 
and magnificent statements concerning the Son of God, if he 
recollects that he was, as the ancients have handed down, 
the disciple of Clement of Alexandria, who treated most 
accurately 7 of the divinity of Christ, the true God; as we 
have shewn above. 

3. And as these testimonies are so clear and express, San 
dius could discern no other way of evading them, than by 
boldly pronouncings, as is forsooth his practice, that "the 
treatises on the Divinity and the Incarnation, against Beron 
and Helix, Serm I. in the Collectanea of Anastasius, are not 
works of Hippolytus." But let us see by what reasoning he 
defends this his authoritative decision, in opposition to the 
judgment of that ancient and great librarian, who was es 
pecially versed, as his office implied, in the MSS. of the 
earlier Fathers ; l Neither Eusebius," he says, <{ nor Jerome 
have mentioned any treatise of that kind." As if, for 
sooth, Eusebius and Jerome had made particular mention 

d Hippolytus, Sermon I. in Anasta- 
sius s Collectanea, p. 210. 

e ebv a-rreipov 6p.ov, Kal Treptypairrov 
av6pcairov ovra re Kal vovptvov, rfyv 
ovainv e/carepou reAeiws TeAeitw e%oi/Ta. 
[vol. i. p. 226. J 

f rb yap dt iov, ws fy trpb 
effrt Kal /JLCJO. odpK(a<nv /card 

&CTX^TOV, a-jradfs, 
TOV, &Tpeirroj , 
rb irav tlTTtiv, ix^effrbs outnaiSes, ^.6vov 
aireipoaOeves a-yaQ6v. [Hippolytus, 
Serai. I. apud Anastas. in Coll 
p. 211.] 

* De Script. Eccl., p. 27. 


His statements are neither Sabellian nor Eutychian. 209 

of all the writings of all the ancient doctors. Nay further, BOOK n. 
Eusebius expressly declares, that he had not by any means CH | P 2 V 3 m 
given a full catalogue of the works of Hippolytus, as, HIPPOLY _ 
after enumerating certain of his writings, he adds 1 ; "andxus. 
you will find very many others, and those preserved by 
several persons." And Jerome added very few writings of 
Hippolytus to Eusebius s catalogue. Indeed with no less sem 
blance of truth might Sandius have contended that Hippoly 
tus never was bishop of any church, seeing that both Euse 
bius and Jerome were wholly ignorant of the place of which 
he was bishop, and we learned it at last from Anastasius. [272] 
Here too is another trifling argument of his; " The author of 
those Excerpta must necessarily have been either a Sabel 
lian or a Eutychian, because of these words of his : f O rav 
rov ecm ra> Harpi, yevo/juevos ravrov rrj aap/cl Sia rrjv /ce- 
vcocriv, in which He is the same with the Father, having be 
come the same with the flesh through His emptying of Him 
self 1 / But both forms of expression are heretical in the [Cf. Phil. 
judgment of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians, when he 
says that heretics teach" ravrov elvat, rrarepa, /cal viov, /cal 
Trvevfjia aytov, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost are the same/ and afterwards ovSe yap ravrov ebs 
/cal dv0pa)7ros } for neither is God and man the same/ For 
if ravrov be said to denote identity of subsistence 2 , it is most 2 subsisten- 
clearly Sabellianism ; if it mean unity of essence and nature, hypos tasis, 
it is palpable Eutychianism." To this I reply, that ravrov in or person. 
the former clause of the passage, [i. e. of the quotation from 
Hippolytus,] does certainly denote unity of essence or nature, 
and not identity of subsistence ; which latter sense alone the 
Pseudo-Ignatius 3 , whom Sandius quotes, attacked. Still it 3 spurius 
must not on this account be conceded, that the phrase rav- J iu e s> gna 
TO v rfi aap/ci ("the same with the flesh") establishes Eu 
tychianism. In order that you may perceive more clearly 
the insufferable ignorance or dishonesty, whichever it be, 
of the objector, see here, reader, the passage of Hippoly 
tus entire?: "The Word or Son of God," he says, "under- 

7rAe?<rra re &\\a KO.} irapk TroAAoTs n [S. Ignat. Interp. Ep. ad Trail., 

evpois &v (rca6/j.ei>a. [Hist. Eccles. vi. c. vi. p. 62.] 

22.] ^ [Ibid., c. ix. p. 64.] 

m [The treatises of Hippolytus just p rpoir^v oi>x VTrefj.eivei , /UTjS ev\ Trav- 

spoken of.] reAws, & Ta.vr6v (raurJ ed. Cotel.) e<rrt 


210 The doctrines of Eutyches condemned by anticipation 




Tavrov Ty 



* ayevvrj- 

3 barbare. 

5 de per- 

6 demum. 

went no change, not in any one point, in which He is 
the same with the Father, having become the same with 
the flesh 1 through His emptying of Himself. But just as 
He was when apart from flesh, so did He continue, free 
from all circumscription." You see that Hippolytus does not 
here affirm, but expressly denies, that the Word or Son of 
God, after His Incarnation, became in any respect whatever 
the same with the flesh. Surely nothing could have been 
said more expressly opposed to the madness of Eutyches. But 
Sandius still presses the point ; " It is, moreover," he says, 
" abundantly clear that the author was a Sabellian, from his 
words in Anastasius, in which he attributes to the Son the 
quality of being ayevvrjros 2 ; for Ignatius, in the passage re 
ferred to<i, writes, that the heretics (the followers of Simon, 
who were the precursors of Sabellius) thought that Christ 
was ayevvTjTOs." Surely the sophist is here in sport, and 
wishing to make sport of his reader through the palpable 
double-meaning of the word a^evvrjcria. I have already shewn 
that the words ayevrjTos and ayeyvijTos are used indiscrimi 
nately by ecclesiastical writers, especially those who were 
prior to the council of Nice ; so that ayevvrjTos, as well as 
a<yevr)Tos } indicated that which is uncreate or not made ; in 
which sense the true Ignatius expressly declared that the Son 
is ayevwqTos. See what we have already said in chapter ii. 
6. of this book, [pp. 96, 97.] Anastasius, therefore, has 
correctly, though barbarously 3 , translated ayevvrjcria, the 
word used by Hippolytus, by infactio. I am sorry to have 
so often to remind the reader of such trite and well-known 

4. More specious is the objection of those who attempt to 
prove that these Excerpta are not the writings of Hippolytus, 
on the ground that they contain a clear refutation of the 
heresy of Eutyches, who lived long after Hippolytus. Pos- 
sevin, after 4 Canisius, replies to them in his Apparatus 1 ", by 
saying that "the ferror" respecting the mixture 5 of the natures 
in Christ, " against which Hippolytus is disputing, was not 
for the first time 6 originated and introduced by Apollinaris 

Ttf Harp}, yev6/nevos ravrbv rrj ffapifl 
Stce TTJJ/ Ktvucriv dAA 1 Sxnrfp i\v 8i% 
crapubs, irdo"r)s eco irepLypatyris yueyiieV?7Ke. 
Anastas. in Collect., p. 210. .[vol. i. 

p. 226.] 

q [Ibid., c. vi. p. 62.] 

1 [p. 763. ed. 1608. Cf. Canisii Lect. 
Antiq., torn. i. p. 11. ed. 1725.] 

by St.Hippolytus, as by Tertullian. 211 

and Eutyches, but was very much earlier, since Justin Martyr BOOK n. 
makes mention of it in his Exposition of the Faith." Perhaps CH ^ p -^ Ir1 
Canisius and Possevin were wrong, in attributing the Ex- HIPPOLY- 
position of the Faith to Justin Martyr; still it is very certain Tus - 
from other sources, that the error respecting the mixture of 
the natures in Christ was earlier than Apollinaris and Euty- 
ches ; and moreover, that it was opposed by doctors of the 
Church who lived before Hippolytus. I might make good 
this statement by many testimonies, but I shall be content 
with a single passage out of Tertullian ; in his treatise against 
Praxeas, which is of unquestioned genuineness, chap. 27 s , [274] 
he thus speaks concerning the Incarnation of the Word; 
" This we must enquire into, how the Word became flesh, 
whether [by] having been as it were transformed in flesh 1 , Uransfigu- 
or having put on flesh? Surely, having put on [flesh.] For came. 1 " 
the rest, we must needs believe God to be unchangeable, 
and incapable of form 2 , as being eternal. But transforma- 2 informa 
tion is a destruction of that which previously existed 3 ; for ^Iftei-em . 
whatsoever is transformed into something else, ceases to be tio pris- 
that which it had been, and begins to be what it was not. 
But God neither ceases to be [what He is,] nor can He be 
any thing else [than He is.] But the Word is God, and 
the Word of the Lord abideth for ever, by continuing, that 
is, in His own form. Now if He admit not of being trans 
formed, it follows, that He be in this sense understood to 
have been made flesh, when He comes to be in the flesh, and 
is manifested, and is seen, and is handled by means of the 
flesh; inasmuch as the other points also require to be thus 100 
understood. For if the Word has been made flesh by a 
transformation and change 4 of substance, it follows at once 4 demuta- 
that Jesus will be one substance out of two substances, a tl( 
kind of mixture 5 [made up] of flesh and spirit, just like 5 mixtura 


8 De hoc quaerendum, quomodo Ser- Domini manet in sevum, perseverando 

mo caro sit factus, utrumne quasi scilicet in sua forma. Quern si non 

transfiguratus in carne, an indutus car- capit transfigurari, consequens est, ut 

nem? Irno indutus. Cseterum Deum sic caro factus intelligatur, dum fit in 

immutabilem et informabilem credi ne- carne et manifestatur, et vidttur, et 

cesse est, ut seternum. Transfiguratio contrectatur per carnem : quia et cae- 

autem interemptio est pristini ; omne tera sic accipi exigunt. Si enim Sermo 

enim quodcumque transfiguratur in ex transfiguratione et demutatione sub- 

aliud, desinit esse quod fuerat, et in- stantiae caro factus est, una jam erit 

cipit esse quod non erat; Deus autem substantia Jesus ex duabus, ex carne 

neque desinit esse, neque aliud potest et spiritu mixtura qusedam, ut elec- 

esse. Sermo autem, Deus ; et Sermo trum ex auro et argento ; et incipit nee 


212 Tertullian might seem to be opposing Eutyches. 

2 usque- 

3 in sua 


4 [Rom. i. 

electrum [made up] of gold and silver; and there begins 
to be neither gold, that is to say, Spirit, nor silver, that is, 
flesh ; the one being changed by the other, and a third 
substance 1 produced. Jesus, therefore, will neither be God; 
for He who is made flesh has ceased to be the Word; nor 
will He be flesh, that is, Man; inasmuch as He who was 
the Word is not properly Flesh. Consequently, [being 
made up] of both, He is neither; [but rather] He is a third 
substance very different from either. But now we find Him 
expressly set forth as both God and Man . . . clearly in all 
respects 2 the Son of God, and the Son of Man, as being God 
and Man, without doubt according to each substance dif 
fering in what is peculiar to itself 3 , because the Word is 
nothing else but God, and the Flesh nothing else but Man. 
Thus does the Apostle also teach concerning His twofold sub 
stance; Who was made/ says he, f of the seed of David 4 ; 
here He will be Man and Son of Man : Who was declared 
to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit f here He will 
be God, and the Word of God, the Son. We see the two 
fold state, which is not confounded, but joined in one Person, 
Jesus, God and Man/ These are the words of Tertullian, 
who was earlier than Hippolytus, than which nothing was 
ever said more express or effectual against the heresy of 
Eutyches. Yet, who would not regard that man as an egre 
gious sophist, who should conclude from this that the treatise 
against Praxeas was not Tertullian s, but the work of an 
author who wrote subsequently to the time of Eutyches? 
But forsooth as in the world, so in the Church, the same 
play is ever acted over again, and the heresies which a later 
age calls new, are in truth nothing but ancient errors re 
vived, and recalled from the shades. 

aurum esse, id est, spiritus, neque ar- 
gentum, id est, caro, dum alterum al- 
tero mutatur, et tertium quid efficitur. 
Neque ergo Deus erit Jesus ; Sermo 
enim desiit esse, qui caro factus est : 
neque caro, id est, homo ; caro enim 
non proprie est, qui Sermo fuit. Ita ex 
utroque neutrum est ; aliud longe ter 
tium est, quam \itrumque. Sed enim 
invenimus ilium directo et Deum et 
hominem expositum .... certe usque- 
quaque Filium Dei et Filium hominis, 
cum Deum et hominem, sine dubio se- 

cundum utramque substantiam in sua 
proprietate distantem ; qui . neque Ser 
mo aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud 
quam homo. Sic et apostolus de utra- 
que ejus substantia docet; Qui factus 
est, inquit, ex semine David ; hie erit 
homo et filius hominis : qui definitus est 
Films Dei secundum Spiritum; hie erit 
Deus et Sermo Dei, Filius. Videmus 
duplicem statum, non confusum, sed 
conjunctum in una persona, Deum et 
hominem Jesum. [p. 516.] 

Other arguments against these works refuted. 213 

5. But what does the author of the Irenicum u mean, by BOOK n. 
rejecting these fragments of Hippolytus as " very recently CH *4 V 5 " J 
brought forward 1 ?" Is Anastasius himself very recent, who HIPPOLY- 
flourished eight hundred years ago ? yet in his Collectanea, Tus - 
these Excerpta are extant, and are brought forward as (beyond simlTpro-" 
controversy) the genuine works of Hippolytus. Or Joes he ducta - 
suspect that those Collectanea, which Sirmond edited in the 
year 1620, are not the production of Anastasius the librarian? 
And yet Anastasius himself, in the preface to his undoubted 
work, the Ecclesiastical History, or Chronographia tripartita, 
expressly professes himself to be the author of those Collecta 
nea, and mentions (as P. Labbe has observed) some of the 
tracts which he had translated into Latin and inserted in 
that collection. As to this anonymous writer s further ob 
jection, that certain statements are found in those Excerpt a 
touching the eternity of the Son, which are inconsistent with 
the doctrine of Hippolytus in his undoubted work against 
the heresy of Noetus, I shall clearly shew how frivolous it is, 
when I come to the third book, on the coeternity of the [276] 
Son. It is also to no purpose that he adduces out of this 
same treatise against Noetus the following passage, as incon 
sistent with the theology of the Excerpta*: "For neither was 
the Word without flesh, and of Himself, perfect Son, whilst 
yet He was the perfect WORD, [being] the Only-begotten : 
neither could the flesh apart from the Word subsist of itself, 
forasmuch as it had its vTroa-racris in the Word, (that is to 
say, it subsisted in the Word)." For surely Hippolytus was 
not so insane as to say (what our anonymous author would 
have him say) that aught of intrinsic perfection really ac 
crued to the Word, or Only-begotten, from His assuming 
flesh; nay, he plainly teaches the contrary. For, in the 
first place, he expressly declares, that our Lord was the per 
fect Word, and Only-begotten, previous to His incarnation. 
And then he clearly teaches, that so far was the Word or 
Only-begotten from being bettered by 2 the human flesh, 2 meiiora- 

turn ex. 

" P- 6 ?. ffraffiv exeiz/. vol. ii. p. 17. Both Bp. 

* [The Greek is, oft-e^ yap avapicos Bull and the author of the Irenicum, 

Kai /ca0 eavrbf 6 \oyos reXeioy tfv vlbs, from want of care, substitute in the 

Kal roi reAetos \6yos &v jj-ovoyev^s, ovff Latin virAffraffiv for avffTaffiv. B. The 

T) o-apl KO.& eaurV 5i x rov \6yov viro- words added in the Latin version are 

cravat rjSwaro, Sia rb eV \6y v rV at- enclosed in parentheses.] 

1 filiationis 
genere de- 

2 scilicet. 

3 ex. 

4 ex hac 

5 accessit. 

6 nempe. 



ex hac 




TOV iravrds. 

Of the threefold Sonship of our blessed Lord. 

that that flesh owes its very subsistence to the Word. What 
then, you will say, did Hippolytus mean, by saying that the 
Word and Only-begotten was not, without flesh, a perfect 
Son? I reply, his meaning manifestly was, that, previous to 
the Incarnation, the Word had not, so to speak, fulfilled every 
kind of sonship ; or in other words, was not, as yet, the Son 
of God, in every way in which the Father willed Him to be. 
What I mean 2 is this ; the ancients attributed to our Lord a 
threefold nativity and sonship. The first is that whereby, as 
the Logos, He was from eternity born of 3 the mind of the 
Father. From this nativity there has existed* a perfect Divine 
Person ; nor has anything subsequently been added 5 to Him; 
but the remaining nativities have been rather o-vyfcara^d- 
o-eis, or condescensions of the Son of God. For 6 the second 
nativity is that by which the Word came forth in operation 7 
from God the Father, (with whom He had been, when as yet 
there was nothing in being besides God, and consequently 
from eternity,) and proceeded forth from His womb, as it 
were, and lowered Himself 8 for the creation of the universe. 
The third and last nativity took place at that time, when the 
same Word became flesh, and descending from the bosom of 
the Father into the womb of the most blessed Virgin, was born 
Man of her, through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. 
This was that extreme condescension of the Word, (eternally 
to be adored by us men, aye, and by the very angels,) on the 
completion of which He became the perfect Son of God, that 
is, as I have already said, He fulfilled every kind of sonship ; 
inasmuch as the other sonships, which regard the human na 
ture of Christ, depend upon this, and follow from it 9 . This 
we shall explain more at length in the third book, concern 
ing the coeternity of the Son; in the meantime this is to be 
observed, that among the passages, which the author of the 
Irenicum has adduced from Hippolytus s book against Noetus, 
as contrary to the Catholic, i. e., the Nicene faith, there are 
some which singularly confirm that very faith. Such is the 
following passage; " When I say that He is another/ (that is, 
the Son from the Father,) "I do not say that there are two 
Gods, but [I say that He is another,] as light from light, 
and water from a fountain, or a ray from the sun. For the 
Power from the Whole is one 10 ; the Whole, however, is the 

Passages from St. Hippolytus against Noetus, explained. 215 

Father, the Power from whom is the Word. But this 
[Word] is the mind or sense 1 , which, going forth into the 
world, was manifested to be the Son of God?. All things 
therefore, were (made 2 ) through Him, but He Himself alone 
is (begotten 3 ) of 4 the Father." In this passage he proves that 
the Father and the Son, though distinct in Person, are yet 
one God, by this argument, that the Son is not God of Him 
self 5 , but God of 6 God, and that He comes forth from 7 the 
Father, as light from 7 light, and water from 7 the fountain, and 
the ray from 8 the sun ; at the same time he most distinctly 
excepts the Son from the number of things made by God, in 
that He declares Him alone to be begotten from God the 
Father Himself, [statements] which entirely agree with the 
Nicene Confession. Nor ought it to cause the slightest 
difficulty to any one, that in the same passage Hippolytus 
calls the Father the Whole 9 , and the Son the Power from 
the Whole 10 . For the Father is rightly designated the Whole, 
inasmuch as He is the fountain of Godhead (7777777 <9eo- 
rr]Tos), seeing that the Godhead which is in the Son and in 




1 vovs 
mens sive 


2 facta, 
Lat. V. 

3 genitus, 
Lat. V. 


5 a seipso. 
6 de. 

9 totum. 

10 virtutem 
ex toto. 

y In the Greek text, which has been 
lost through the lapse of time, the 
reading no doubt was, O irpof\6wv els 
Tbv K6ff[j.ov e<pavepci>dr) 6 TTOIS TOV eoG. 
For this same writer s words, in his in 
terpretation of the second Psalm, are 
to a similar effect, which I quote from 
Theodoret, in p. 103. col. 1. init. [i. e. 
of Grabe s folio edition of Bp. Bull s 
works; see Append, on this passage.] 
O irpoeXOwv els rbv KO(T/J.OV ebs KOI 
Hvdpuiros etyavepwdT]. [The entire pas 
sage is given by Fabricius, (who first 
published this work in Greek,) thus; 
(Bibl. Grsec.) vol. ii. p. 13. "Erepov Se 
\fyuv ou Svo Oeovs \4y(, aAA. cos <p>s 
e /c Qcarbs, ^ us vScap e /c 7777777?, % us a/c- 
Tlva cnrb r]\iov. Avvapis yap fj.ia r) e /c 
TOV iravrbs, rb Se ivav Timrip, e | ou 5v- 
VO.IJ.LS \6yos. OVTOS Se vovs, bs Trpofias 
ev K6(T/j.v eSe iKi/vTO TTCUS &eov. HavTa 
TOIVVV Si avTov, avrbs Se JJ.QVOS e/c Tla- 
rp6s. B. The Latin version in Bp. 
Bull is; Cum alium dico, non duos 
Deos dico, sed tanquam lumen ex lu- 
mine, et aquam ex fonte, aut radium a 
sole ; una enim virtus ex toto ; totum 
vero Pater, ex quo virtus, Verbum ; hoc 
vero mens sive sensus, qui, prodiens in 
mundum, ostensus est Puer Dei. Om- 
nia igitur per eum facta sunt ; ipse so 
lus ex Patre genitus.] But that it was 

usual also for Hippolytus to call Christ 
rbv TrcuSa TOV eoG, the Child, or ra 
ther the Son, of God, (puerum sive 
potius filium,) is evident from his trea 
tise called Demonstratio de Christo 
et Antichristo, inserted in the last 
Auctarium of the Bibliotheca Patrum 
of Combefis, Paris, 1672. For there, 
not far from the beginning, [3. vol. i. 
p. 5,] he propounds this question : 
"You enquire how, in old time, the 
Word of God, Himself again the Child 
of God, who of old indeed was the 
Word, made a revelation to the blessed 
prophets?" (Tlcas %.v Trd\ai TO?S /maKa- 
piois Trpo^rais airfKa\v\l/ei 6 TOV &eov 
\6yos, avrbs iraA/i/ 6 TOV &eov -nais, 6 
Trd\cu jJLtv \6yos, Tvy^lv e-Tn.friTe is. ) And 
after a short interval, efs yap /cat 6 TOV 
&eov Trcus, /c.T.A. ; " For the Child of 
God also is one," &c., See. Compare 
also his expression in section 61, cited 
p. 104. col. 2. [ed. fol. see Appendix. 
"Christ the child of God, iraiSa 0eoG, 
both God and man."] Hippolytus and 
some other of the ancient, fathers gave 
this appellation to Christ from Isaiah 
xlii. 1, and other passages; where God 
says of Him; I5o0 6 -nous pov although 
TTCUS there means servant. This how 
ever is by the way. GRABE. 

i? eVa 



3 e o X 

4 trino et 

5 trinum 
et unum. 

216 His statements in harmony with the Nicene Faith. 

the Holy Ghost is the Father s, because it is derived from the 
Father. In like manner the statements are especially catho 
lic, which the sophist soon afterwards produces from the same 
work of Hippolytus ; I mean these ; " The Father commands, 
the Word performs; and the Son is manifested, through whom 
the Father is believed on. The economy of agreement is 
gathered up into One God 1 ; for God is One ; for He who com 
mands [is] Father, He who obeys [is] Son, that which teaches 
wisdom [is] Holy Ghost. The Father who is above all, the 
Son through all, and the Holy Ghost in all z ." Here, as you 
see, Hippolytus plainly teaches, that the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost are one God, and attributes to each Person 
of the Trinity omnipresence, and divine power such as to 
pervade all things; and in saying of the Father that He 
commands, and of the Son that He obeys, he has other or 
thodox fathers agreeing with him, and using similar expres 
sions, not only such as lived before, but also such as flourished 
after the Nicene Council. Refer by all means to what we 
have before said on Irenseus, in chap. v. 6. of this book, 
[pp. 170, 171.] In like manner what he says of the Father, 
that He is in a peculiar sense over 2 all things, is altogether 
to be referred to that pre-eminence 3 of the Father, as the 
Father, which all catholics acknowledge. But why need I 
say more ? The very title of the book against Noetus suffi 
ciently shews, how utterly vain is the attempt of the author 
of the Irenicum to build up from it the Arian blasphemy; 
for the book is thus entitled : " A Homily respecting God, 
Three and One 4 , and the mystery of the Incarnation, against 
the heresy of Noetus a ." But, certainly, no Arian can, with 
out sophistry and deceit, acknowledge that God is Three and 
One 5 . And thus much concerning St. Hippolytus. 

tur. (Economia consensionis redigitur 
ad unum Deum. Unus enim est Deus, 
qui mandat Pater, qui obedit Filius, 
qui docet scientiam Spiritus Sanctus. 
Pater, qui est super omnia, Filius per 
omnia, Spiritus Sanctus in omnibus. 
The Greek has been followed in the 

* [Homilia de Deo Trino et uno et 
de mysterio Incarnationis contra hse- 
resim Noeti.] 

[The Greek is, 
yos aTroreAe?, vlbs Se SeiWuTcti 5i 5 ov 

vias (rvvdyerai els fva ebv, efs yap 
fffTLi 6 e6s 6 yap Ke\vuv Trarfyp, 6 
Se viraKovciiV vlbs, rb Se ffvv^n^OV ayiov 
TTi/fv/iia. O &>v irar^p e-rrl iravruv, 6 8e 
vlbs Sia TrdvTccv, Tb Se ayiov Tri/eu/xa 4v 
Traviv. Vol. ii. p. 15, 16. B. The 
Latin as given by Bp. Bull is Pater 
mandat, Verbum perficit ; Filius au- 
tem ostenditur, per quern Pater credi- 

Great difference of opinion with respect to Origen. 217 

BOOK rr. 


_5. ix. 1. 





1. NEXT after Hippolytus should come his rival 1 , 
also, in that rivalry, proved to be far his superior, I mean 
Origen b . It is astonishing how much theologians, both of 
ancient and modern times, have been divided into parties, 
and how very keenly they have contended, about the doctrine 
of this celebrated 2 man. To treat only of the ancients, 
in conformity with my design ; of these, some praise and A7?TOS> 
extol Origen to the skies, others anathematize him as the 
worst of heresiarchs, nay, as the fountain and spring of 
almost all heresies, especially of those which relate to the 
Church s faith concerning the most Holy Trinity. As re 
spects the catholic doctors, however, who were nearer to the 
time of Origen, the larger, and by far the more weigh ty 331on # e 
portion are ranged on his side 4 . Alexander of Jerusalem, ips j ad _ 
Theoctistus of Csesarea, Dionysius of Alexandria, Firmilian stipuiati 
of Csesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Athenodorus, con 
temporaries of Origen, always held him in the highest 
estimation; whilst the whole of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia 
and Achaia defended his cause against Demetrius of Alex 
andria. Afterwards Pamphilus the Martyr, and Eusebius of 
Csesarea, in an Apology containing six books, whereof one 
only is extant, maintained the same cause. Again, Pho- 
tius informs us, Cod. 118, that several other men of great 
name in the times of Eusebius, had written Apologies 
for Origen. Moreover, the great Athanasius, in his trea 
tise concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nice, com 
mended Origen as a strenuous supporter of the Catholic 
faith, against the heresy which was afterwards called Arian. [287] 

b He was born in the year 186. Cave. BOWYER. 




2 chalcen- 

terus ille. 

3 neutri 

4 maleferi 



6 tenebrio- 

218 The weight of authority is strongly in his favour. 

With these must be classed Didymus of Alexandria, (a cele 
brated man, whom Jerome often boasts -of having had for his 
teacher,) who published an apologetic discourse for Origen, 
- and Titus, bishop of Bostra, and the noble pair of Gregories, 
of Nazianzum and of Nyssa, with John of Jerusalem, who is 
on this account assailed with continual reproaches by Epi- 
phanius and Jerome. Methodius too, who wrote long be 
fore the rise of the Arian controversy, though he was at 
first a most determined adversary of Origen, after a time 
laid aside his enmity, and in the end was not ashamed to 
profess himself one of his admirers. Finally, Ruffinus (who, 
whatever a later * age may have thought of him, is called by 
Cassian, in his seventh book on the Incarnation , "a Chris 
tian philosopher, holding no contemptible place among the 
doctors of the Church," and whose sanctity was at one time 
commended in the highest terms, even by Jerome himself, 
as appears from his fifth Epistle d to Elorentius) was a very 
earnest champion on the side of Origen; to say nothing 
of the numberless monks, scattered throughout Egypt, who 
engaged in the warmest conflicts with Theophilus of Alex 
andria, in his cause. 

2. In this so great difference of opinion among men so great, 
it were to be wished, that of the innumerable writings which 
this unwearied author 2 composed, a greater number had come 
down to us entire and uncorrupted, from which we, who do 
not belong to either party 3 , might have been able to judge for 
ourselves with more certainty about his doctrine. But, alas, 
some of Origen s works were corrupted and interpolated, even 
in his own lifetime, by worthless and idle 4 men, and some 
writings no way his own 5 , but altogether spurious, were pub 
lished under his very celebrated name, as he himself com 
plained in a letter 6 to certain persons in Alexandria. So that 
you may easily conjecture with how much greater boldness 
those dishonest men 6 would perpetrate such forgeries after 
his death. It is certain that by far the greatest portion of 
the works of Origen have now entirely perished ; whilst those 
which still remain, with the exception of his Treatise against 

c Christians philosophic vir, baud 
contemnenda ecclesiasticorum docto- 
rum portio [c. 27. p. 1125.] 

d [Epist. iv. 2. vol. i. p. 14. B.] 
e Extant in Ruffinus, de Adulter. 
libb. Origen. [pp. 51, 52.] 

His works corrupted, and differing much in value. 219 

Celsus, and certain extracts from his writings, called Philo- BOOK n. 
calia, were extant only in Latin,, and that much interpolated ^j^.^ 
and altered by translators *, as is certain from positive evi- OR I G EN. 
dence, until the famous Daniel Huet recently published in 1 interpre- 
Greek several of his exegetical works from the MSS.; and h 
on this account, that very learned man has deserved well of 
all lovers of antiquity, as will be acknowledged by every 
one who is not influenced by ill-will. Yet Huet f himself 
declares, that he thinks it probable, "that all the works of 
Origen, which fortune has transmitted to us, have been cor 
rupted, and those especially which, besides the errors of 
copyists and the adulterations of heretics, have also suffered 
from the mistakes and dishonesty of translators." Un 
less I am mistaken, he ought to have excepted the books 
against Celsiis; for no one, to my knowledge, has hitherto 
suspected that they have suffered any other injury worth 
notice, beyond the errors of transcribers 2 , from which none 2 Kbrario- 
of the works of the ancients are altogether free. JJwraT* " 

3. But if all the writings of Origen were now extant, and 
that in a pure and uncorrupted state, they still would not all 
be of equal service for shewing his true and genuine opi 
nions ; inasmuch as the purport 3 of the various compositions 3 ratio. 
of a voluminous author would be different. For some of his 
works were written privately g to friends, which he never ex 
pected to see the light; in these he discussed subjects freely [2891 
and almost sceptically, and generally propounded not so much 
his own fixed and definite views, as either the reasonings of 
others, or little difficulties 4 and slight doubts of his own, for 4 scrupulos 
the clearer elucidation of the truth. Others he himself pub- <l uosdam - 
lished, either against unbelievers, or in opposition to heretics, 
or, lastly, for the instruction of Christians in general 5 ; in 5 christia- 
which, proceeding along the beaten and safe road, he studi- jjg/ 16 
ously taught the doctrine received in the Catholic Church. 
Then again, some he dictated 6 hastily, others he wrought out dictitavit. 
with more diligent care. And, lastly, some things (to use the 

f Origenian. p. 233. such things ; and threw back upon 

Respecting these, Jerome, Epist. Ambrose [his contemporary and friend] 

Ixv. ad Pamm. et Ocean. [Ep. Ixxxiv. the charge of inconsiderateness in hav- 

10. vol. i. p. 527,] testifies that Origen, ing made public what he had sent out 

in a letter written by him to Fabian, in private. 

expressed regret for having written 

220 His work against Celsus of most authority. 

ON THE words of Huet) Adamantius, now grown old, revised when his 
genius was somewhat tempered by age ; others he poured out 
with the profusion which puts itself forth in the heat of youth. 
Concerning these works Jerome beautifully said in the Pro 
logue to his Commentaries 11 on Luke, that in some of his trea 
tises Origen was " like a boy playing at dice ; that the works 
of his middle life are different from the serious productions 
of his advanced age." Now it cannot be denied, that the 

1 suffra- expression of Origen s judgment 1 on Catholic doctrine ought 
to be derived chiefly from those works which he himself 
designed for publication, which he wrote thoughtfully and 
attentively, and which, lastly, he composed in advanced life, 
and after he had been instructed by long practice and expe 
rience. Of this sort, as all are agreed, are his eight books 
against Celsus the Epicurean; inasmuch as in them he de 
fends the common doctrine of Christians against a very well 

s instruc- armed 2 enemy of our religion; these were wrought out with 
the utmost care on the part of the author, and with the 
greatest learning, and that when he was now more than 
sixty years of age, as is expressly declared by Eusebius, 
(Eccl. Hist. vi. 36.) Accordingly it will be from these books 
chiefly that I shall allege my testimonies to shew the catho- 
[290] licity of Origen on this article [of the faith] ; adding only a 
few passages out of his other writings, such as are supplied 
me by catholic doctors who lived nearer to the age of Origen, 
and so best knew how to distinguish his genuine writings 
from what were spurious. From all this I trust that the 

3 impoten- intelligent reader will at length clearly perceive, how wildly 3 
3r Petavius raved 4 against Origen, when he was not ashamed 

chatus. to write thus of a most holy and learned father, as even his 
enemies allow him to have been 1 ; " As to Origen, it is cer 
tain," he says, "that he entertained impious and absurd 
opinions concerning the Son and the Holy Ghost;" and 
again k , a little after, " Origen, as he preceded Arius in time, so 
was he his equal in impiety ; nay, he taught him his impious 
doctrine." And throughout his work he constantly casts asper- 

h Quasi puerum tails ludere; alia surdeque sensisse. De Trin. i. 12. 9. 

esse virilia ejus,et alia senectutis seria. k Origenes ut aetate Arium anteces- 

[vol. vii. p. 247.] sit, sic impietate par, imo impii dog- 

1 De Origene, inquit, constat, eum matis auctor illi fuit. Ibid. 10. 
de Filio ac Spiritu Sancto iinpie ab- 


Oriyen s doctrine on the Trinity not condemned by the Church. 221 

sions such as these on Origen. Perhaps the Jesuit thought BO 
that his religion bound him thus to malign the venerable 
father, because, forsooth, Origen and the Origenists, together 
with their doctrines, were condemned and anathematized in 
the fifth [general] council 1 . But there have not been want 
ing illustrious men of the Church of Rome, (I mean John 
Picus of Mirandula, James Merlin of Victurnia, Dcsidcrius 
Erasmus of Rotterdam, Sixtus of Siena, Claudius Espencseus, 
Gilbert Geriebrard, and Peter Halloix,) who, having no fear 107 
for themselves from the anathemas of the fifth council, have 
had the courage not merely to mention Origen without re 
proaches, but even to take his part openly and avowedly. 
No doubt they judged rightly, that it was not so much 
Origen himself, or his genuine opinions 1 , that were anathc- placita. 
matized, as those very pernicious dogmas concerning a Trinity [291] 
of different substance 2 , and an imaginary 1 resurrection of the 2 de Tri- 
body, which were contained in the adulterated writings of J^,* T< 
Origen, or which certain Origenists, as they are called, used 3 phantas- 
to advance under the sanction of his great name. It is true 
that the council condemned, along with these, paradoxical 
speculations concerning the pre-existence of souls, the ani 
mated nature of the stars and of the elements, &c., which 
were really Origen s own ; but these were condemned only 
as false and very absurd, not as heretical, unless there were 
in addition an inflexible obstinacy of mind, and that con 
tempt of catholic opinion, which, as it was quite alien from 
Origen himself, so did it display itself to excess in most of 
the Origenists. But let us now approach the subject itself. 

4. In his books against Celsus, Origen" 1 so frequently de 
clares the nature of the Word arid Son of God to be truly 
divine, that is to say, uncreate, infinite, incomprehensible, 
and unchangeable, that were I disposed to adduce all the 
statements which bear on this subject, I should be obliged 
to transcribe a great part of his treatise. I shall, therefore, 
bring forward only some more select passages out of that 
work. In the first book, treating of the Magi, who came 
from the East to Judea, to see the King, whom the unwonted 

Or rather in another synod held at Evagrius, p. 111. [iv. 38. note 6.] 
Constantinople prior to the fifth coun- " Written ahout the year 247. Cave. 

cil. See the notes of Valesius on BOWYER. 


2 John viii. 

222 Origen expressly asserts the Divinity of the Son; and that 

appearance of the star pointed out, he thus speaks ; ["They 
came] bringing gifts, which they offered as symbols to One, 
who was, so to say, a compound 1 of God and mortal man ; the 
gold as to a King, the myrrh as to One who was to die, and 
the frankincense as to God." Here, in the Person of Christ, he 
recognises both mortal man and the immortal God, to whom 
is due divine honour, which used formerly to be exhibited 
by the offering of frankincense. A passage exactly corre 
sponding to this occurs in the same book a few pages after; 
where, when Celsus jests at the blood of Jesus shed upon 
the cross, and says, "that it was not such blood as the 
blessed gods are wont to have," Origen thus answers him : 
"We, believing Jesus Himself, when He says of the God 
head which is in Him, I am the way, and the truth, and the 
life/ and whatever else there is to the like effect; and, on the 
other hand, when He thus speaks 2 of the fact of His being in 
a human body, Now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath 
told you the truth/ we say that He became something com 
pounded 3 ." Afterwards he says that Christ had? "some 
thing more divine 4 within the manhood which was seen, 
which was He that is properly 5 the Son of God, God the 
Word, the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God." And 
then after some considerable interval, he designates Christ 
as 4 " God, who appeared in human body for the benefiting 
of our race." 

5. In the second book, citing Gen. i. 26, " Let us make 
man in our image and after our likeness;" and that passage 
of David, Ps. cxlviii. 5, " He spake and they were made, He 
commanded and they were created ;" he collects, that it 
was the Son and Word of God unto whom the Father thus 
spake and gave commandment, by the following argument"; 

n (pfpovTes |U.e;/ Supa, a ( lv OVTWS bvo- 
judVco) o~vvQtT(p Tivl fK &eov Kal av6pu>- 
TTOV dvrjTov Trpoff-fiveyKav truyU/SoAo f^v, 
us jSao-iAe? rbi/ xpvv bv, ws Se Te0i/r?|o- 

V(ar 6vy. 46. ed. Cantab. 1658. [ 60. 
vol. i. p. 375.] 

rj/j.e is 8 ai>T<p truTTevovTes Irjcrov, 
Trepl fj,ev Trjs ev a.vT(f 6ei6Tf)Tos \eyovTi, 
Eyu> et/jLi f) <552>s, Kal rj aArjfleta Kal -rj 
fa}), Kal elf TI TOVTOIS TrapaTrXyo-iov 
Trepl Se TOV, ^TI ev avdpcinrivw crco/xaTt 
i)v, TavTa (pdaKovTt, NCv Se fVjTetTe ^we 

6eiav vfitv AeAaATj/ccT ffvvQ^r^v TI 
(f)afji.fv avTbv yeyovevai. [ 66. p. 380- 

P Qei6Tt:p6v Tl eV T$ &\TTOV.fVW OLI/- 

OpwTTCf}, tiirep i^v 6 Kvpiws vlbs eou, 
ebs Xoyos, QeoG Swapis, Kal eoO ffo- 
<pia. p. 52. 

q [/car 1 7ra77eAtav ToG] 0ebv [e?yat], 
tv a.vQpwnivcp cf>avVTa trctS/uart CTT euep- 
yecria TOV yevovs T\\*.U>V. [ 68. p. 383.] 

r et yap eVeTetAaro 6 eJs, Kal e /crt- 
o-drj TO. b rifj.iovpyfi/j.aTa, Tts &V, Kara T() 

He is the Creator, and distinct from all creatures. 223 

" For if God commanded, and the creatures were made, who BOOK n. 
must He be, who, according to the mind 1 of the prophetic ^a " 
Spirit, was able to execute so great a commandment of the 6^^f~ 
Father, other than He who is, so to call Him, His living 2 Word [293] 
and the Truth ?" In these words he most explicitly distjn- \ T ** 
guishes the Son of God from all created things; and more- ^TJ QS 
over clearly teaches, that the work of creation, which had 
been committed to that Son of God by His Father, was so 
great, (as being peculiarly that of divine omnipotence,) as that 
it could not any way have been accomplished but by Him, 
who is the very Word of God the Father, and the Truth! 
Now all who have any eyes 3 perceive, how far removed this oculati 
reasoning is from the mind of the infatuated Arians, in their omues 
misapplication of these passages of Scripture, and how ex 
actly it accords with the sentiments of the Catholics, who 
vindicate the Godhead of the Son from the work of creation. 
In the same place Origen teaches that the Godhead of the 
Word of God was by no means so circumscribed by the In 
carnation, as not to exist any where external to the body 
and soul of Jesus, but that It is, and has ever been, every 
where present 4 . Lest, however, any one should apply this to 
sanction the heresy of Cerinthus, he presently adds 3 ; " We 
say this, not as separating the Son of God from Jesus; for 
after the Incarnation 5 the body arid the soul of Jesus have 
become in the highest degree one with the Word of God." olKOV ^ av - 
Now could any one set forth, in more catholic terms than 108 
Origen has done in these passages, the twofold nature of 
Christ and the hypostatic union of these two natures ? Pre 
sently afterwards he calls the body of Christ 4 " that which 
is truly the temple of God the Word and Wisdom; and [294] 
Truth/ which the Jews despised, whilst they venerated more 
than enough the material 6 temple of God. e i ap ideum. 

6. In the third book, on Celsus objecting to the Chris 
tians, " that they believe Jesus, consisting of a mortal body, 
to be God, and imagine that they act piously in so doing/ 

7$ TTpO^TlKf WetJ/iOTI, (juxta vidv TOV 060U &7T& TOV inffOV tv Tap 

mentem prophetic! Spiritus,) efy 6 T^V fid\ lff r a ^ra T V oiWo/Jai/ yiyfrmM 

r-nXiKavr W TOV irarpos ivroXfr eWArj- Trp os TOV \6yov TOV eov r, ^ K al rb 

puaai Swivels j) 6 (1v* oSrtas oi/o,uco- W ) o-^a I^crou. p. 64 fp 394 f 

-p. bd. Li p- ^93.] Ka \ ^s (ro^ias Kal T^S oATj^cts. [ 10. 

ravra 5e (pa^t/ ov XWTS rov p. 394.] 

224 Origen on the Divine and Human Natures in Christ ; 

ON THE Origen meets him with this reply"; "Let those who bring 
S^ANTIA" tllis cnar g e against us know, that He, who, we believe and are 
LITY OF persuaded, was God and the Son of God from the beginning, 
Word 1 , and the very Wisdom, and the very 


70?, T) av- Truth : whilst of His mortal body and the human soul with- 

in it, we say that it has by its not communion only, but 
union also and intimate commingling 2 with Him, received the 
g reatest [gifts], and by partaking of His divinity has passed 3 
3 els eov into God." Now (if I have any insight [into it]) the manifest 
icSof 6 ^~ sense f this reply is as follows ; Does this trouble you, O ye 
philosophers, that we Christians call our Saviour Christ God, 
4 ringamini though He consist of a mortal body? Nay, snarl as ye will 4 , 
I 1 . 08 *. . we still affirm that He is, in the truest sense, very God 5 ; 

ipsissi- * 

mum that is to say, very Word x , very Truth, very Wisdom; nay, 

im is so far forth God, that we scruple not to say, that His human 

nature even, through its union with the divine, has been 

in a certain manner deified. In this passage we ought to 

note the expressions avTo\6<yos } avroaXtrjOeia, which are tho- 

[295] roughly Platonic. For Plato called that which is truly and 

6 per se. in itself 6 good, avroayaOov, applying that epithet to the true 
and most high God alone, from whom he widely separated the 
Logos. Origen, however, as though correcting the philosophy 
of Plato by the Christian, declares that the Logos also, or 
Son of God, has just claims to be called very Wisdom, very 

i avroaya- Truth, and by consequence very Goodness 7 . But there is 
not any ground for our Lutheran brethren, who maintain a 
kind of ubiquity of the human nature in Christ, to suppose 
that there is any support for their cause from these words of 
Origen. For in the passage which we just now adduced out 
of the second book, Origen plainly teaches, that the Word is 
so conjoined with the human nature of Christ, as to exist 
even externally to the soul and body of Jesus ; and that the 

8 T&ubique attribute of ubiquity 8 pertains to the Godhead alone. More 
over, in this very passage, not long after the words quoted, 


v ibv &eov, OVTOS 6 avru\6yos 

Kal f) avTOffotyia, Kal rj avroaXi]- p. 135, 136. [ 41. p. 473-74.] 
0eia- rb Sf flj/T/roj/ avrov ffu^a, Kal T)\V x [Ipsam Rationem, &c., equivalent 

vrjv eV avry fyvxty, rrj irpbs to Origen s 6 avTo\6yos, /C.T.A.] 
ov p.6vov Koivcavia, a\\a Kal 

difficulties raised by Celsus about the Incarnation. 225 

Origen himself distinctly explains what he had said of the BOOK n. 
commixture 1 of the human nature in Christ with the divine, c H Q 
in such a way as to declare that he had no other meaning ORIGEN. 
than this, that the glorified flesh of Jesus, by a change of its J de per- 
qualities, was made such as to be fitted to dwell in the highest mixtlone * 
heaven 2 , retaining nothing of that infirmity of the flesh which 2 in sum- 
was born with it 3 . If you have leisure, peruse what follows ** ere< 
in Origen ; I return from this digression to my subject. 

7. In the fourth book, Celsus the Epicurean is intro 
duced disputing against the doctrine of the Christians re 
specting the coming down upon earth of the Son of God 
and His Incarnation, in the following manner ; "God is good, 
beautiful, happy, of the best and fairest form ; were He 
to descend to the condition of man 4 , He must undergo a 
change; but the change will be from good to evil, from beauti 
ful to base, from happy to unhappy, from the best to the worst. 
Who would wish to be thus changed? It is true that a [296] 
change and transformation of this kind is incident to mortal 
man ; but it befits an immortal being, that he continue ever 
to exist in the same state. God, therefore, could never be 
come the subject of such a change/ Now if Origen had 
entertained the same view concerning the Son of God which 
Arius subsequently did, how easily might he have overthrown 
the very foundation of this argument by saying, I mean, 
in one word, that neither he himself nor the catholic Chris 
tians of his time believed the Son of God to be in very deed 
the unchangeable God ; but simply held Him to be a crea 
ture of a nature different from the divine, and altogether 
capable of change. Far otherwise, however, and without doing 
any violence at all to 5 the hypothesis of catholics, concerning 5 salva 
the truly divine and unchangeable nature of the Son of God, 
does Origen reply, in the following words y : " Now I con 
ceive that I shall have returned a sufficient answer to this, if 
I set forth that descending 6 of God unto the condition of 6 Kard _ 
man 7 which is spoken of in the Scriptures ; for which He & a(Tlv - 
has no need of change, as Celsus supposes that we maintain, & . 
nor of passing from good to evil, or from beautiful to base, 

l b 


> SoKe? S-fj poi irpds TO.VTO, XtysaQai T$ Se?, dbs K.4\aos r]/ oterai 

TO. Se oi/Tcc, 5i7?77j<ra,ueVp T^V eV TCUS of/re rpoirrjs, rijs e aya6ov els KO.KOV, if) 

ypa^cus Ae^OjUeVrj^/caTajSao-iz/eeouTrpby e /c /caAoD ds cu<rxpov,$i e euScuyUor/as 

T av9pct>Triva ds V ov jU,eTa/3oAr)s au- ds /caKoSaifioinai/, $) e/c rov apiffrov tis 


226 Oriyen, in his statements respecting the Incarnation, 
ON THE or from happy to unhappy, or from the best to the worst ; 
ITANTIA" ^ or > remaining unchangeable in His essence, He condescends 
LITY OF to the circumstances of men 1 by His providence and dispen 
sation. Yea, and we allege also the divine Scriptures, which 


ois declare that God is unchangeable, both in the words, But 
Thou art the same V and, < I change not 3 / whilst the gods 
27.] of Epicurus, being compounded of atoms, and [consequently], 

g C Mal - lu - go ar as Depends on their constitution, capable of dissolu- 
4 T& oaov tion 4 , have enough to do to shake off 5 the atoms that cause 
*JrA%~ corruption from themselves; nay, the god of the Stoics also, 
&vA\vroi. ag being corporeal, has sometimes the whole substance [turned 
into] mind 6 , when the conflagration happens; and sometimes 
becomes [only] a part of the same, when a re- arrangement 
happens. For these [philosophers] could not even clear our 
natural conception 7 of God, as [of a Being] every way incor- 
ruptible, simple, uncompounded and indivisible. That how- 
109 ever which came down unto men, was in the form of God, 
and out of loving-kindness unto man He emptied Himself 8 , 
iHi 6 1 in order tliat He mi S nt be comprehensible by men ; but yet 
[297] certainly there was no change from good** to evil in Him," &c. 
&c. Shortly afterwards Adamantius subjoins these words r ; 
"Now if Celsus thinks that the immortal God, the Word, 
in having assumed a mortal body and a human soul, un 
dergoes change and transformation, let him learn that the 
\6y OS . Word, remaining Word 9 still in His essence, is not affected 
10 oi>Sev by any 10 of those things by which the body and the soul are 
a ff ec ted; but condescending at a particular time to that 

TO irovr)p6TaTOV. nevwv yap Trj ovffia (3eftr]Kos tls avOpooirovs tv nopcfifj 0eoO 

frrpeTTTOS, (TvyKaT avail s i TJJ irpovoia Kal vTnjpXf, /col 8ia QiXavOpwiriav savTov 

rrl olKovo/ji.ia TOIS avOpwirivois irpd.yiJ.a- e/ceVcocre//, c lva x w P r )^ vai *>"* avOpwiruv 

aiv. ^/ae?s fj.ev ovv Kal ra 0e?a ypdp/jLara fivvridfj. ov STJTTOI; 8 e | ayaOcav [Forte 

Trapi<TTa/j.ev, arpeirrov Xeyovra TOV ayaOov, ut paulo ante. GRABE. Ita 

eoi/, et/ re rep, 2i> 8e 6 avros el Kal eV ed. Bened. B.] eis Kaxov ysyovev av- 

T$, OVK T/AAoico^uai ot Se TOV E7rt/cot5- r$ juera/SoArj K.A. p. 169, 170. [ 14. 

pov 0eoi, avvQeToi e | a.r6p.<av rvyxdvov- p. 510.] 

res, Kal TO tiffov CTT! ry <rvffTa.ffti avd- q e^ ayaOccv els Katibv, K.T.\. : instead 

XVTQI, (ex atomis constantes hoc ipso of e ayaQ&v, Grabe conjectured e| 

dissolvi possent; Bened.) irpay^ar^vov- ayaOov^ as it occurs in the context. 

raiTas(f>dopoiroLovsar6/ji.ovsaTro(Tei(rdai [This is the reading in the Benedic- 

a\\a Kal 6 TU>V ^TWIKUV 6e6s, are (ru^a tine edition. B.] 

rvyxdvw, OTC ( yyeu.oviKoi exet T^V r et 8e Kal ffw^a Qvt]rl)V Kal vJ/uxV 

6\t)V overlay, 6rav y fK-jrvpuffis rj 6re avOpuirivrjV avaXafikv 6 dddvaros eos 

8e firl /Atpovs yivtrai avrrjs, orav g 5m- X6yos Sowel T(p Ke A<rcf> aXXdrreaOat Kal 

Koffwffis. ouSe yap SeSwrjvraL ovrot ^TairXdrrfffQai, u.avQavT<0 on 6 \6yos 

T pavSxrai r^v (pvffiKiiJ TOV QeoG tvvoiav, TTJ ovo-ia u.ev(av \6yos ovoev /J.ev iracrx* 1 

&s irdvTrt atyOdpTov, Kal aiTXov, Kal 3>v irdcrxei TO (ru>fj.a % r) tyvx h ffvyKaja^ 

v, Kal dStaiperou. TO 5e Kara- fiaivwv S eV0 5 ore T<$ /*?) Swcyuivy UVTOV 

teaches the true Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Son. 227 

which cannot look upon His brilliancy 1 , and the splendour BOOK ir. 
of His Godhead, becomes as it were flesh, being spoken of CI A 7 P 8 1X 
after a bodily fashion 2 ." Let any intelligent person say, ORIGEN 
whether these are the words of one who " surpassed Arius in [298] 
impiety, and even originated for him his blasphemous dogma." 1 Tas ? a P~ 
For surely in this passage Origen clearly teaches, that the 2 ffwtJiari . 
Word, or Son of God, is the immortal God, unchangeable KS>S A A "- 
in His substance, and, so far as He subsists in the form of 
God, equally with the Father, of a nature every way incor 
ruptible, simple, uncompounded and indivisible. A little 
after, when about to answer another objection which Celsus 
had urged, akin to the former, he thus begins s : A reply 
might be made to this by distinguishing between the nature 
of the Divine Word, who is God, and the soul of Jesus." 
Here you see it is expressly said that the nature itself of the 
Word is God, or in other words, that the Word is by nature 
God. A passage similar to this is quoted in the Catena of 
Balthasar Corderius, on John i. 1, in which the Son of God 
is called by Origen, " The Maker 3 of the universe, being in 3 & Sr/- 
essence God the Word 4 ." What Arian, however, would have )U oup7 s 
said, that the Son is in His own very essence and substance 
God ? Surely this is the very point which the Nicene Fathers 
decreed in opposition to Arius, namely, that the Son of God 
is of one substance with God. 

8. In his fifth book, in giving a reason why Christians 
worship the Son of God, but not the sun, the moon, or the 
stars, he says u , " It were not, then, reasonable that those, who [299] 
have been taught to ascend in nobleness of nature 4 above 4 
all created beings 5 , .... who are in training to attain 
to the bright and unfading Wisdom, or have even already 
attained to it, being, as it is, a radiance from Light eternal, ** T " 
should be so far overpowered by the sensible 6 brightness 
the sun and the moon and the stars, as, because of their 6 

ras fj.ap/mapvyas Kal r^v \a/ji.Trp6rr]ra TT?S ed. Antw. 1620.] 

flet^TTjros /3Ae7retj/, oiovel <rap yivzrai, u ov roivvv "?\v ev\oyov rovs 8f5a%0eV- 

aca/j.a,TiKws \a\ov/j.evos. [p. 511.] ras /j.eya\o(pvus VTrepavafiafaetv irdvra 

s Trpbs rovro \eyoir* av TTT? /xej> Trepl ra 8r)/j.iovpyf)/Ji.ara . . . affKovvras fXdV 

rr)S TOV Oeiov \6yov (fivaeoas, OVTOS eou rfyv \a/j.irpav Kal ajj.apa.vrov ffofyiav, ^ 

irfj 5e irepl TTJS lrj<roG ^VXTJS. p. 171. Kal ai/i\r](p6ras avrfy ovffav airavyafffjia 

[18. p. 512.] (parks aiSiov, Karair\ayr)vai rb ala"6r)rbv 

1 6 r)/j.iovpybs rov iravr^s, . . . rvy- y\iov Kal creATj^s, Kal affrpwv (pus eVi 

X&vwv 0ebs \6yos /car ovaiav. [p. 7. ro<rovrov t Sxrr^ 8ia rb 


228 The Son classed above created beings, the true 

ON THE sensible light, to suppose themselves to be in some inferior 
STANTIA- position, and to offer them adoration, seeing that they them- 

LITY OF se ives have so great a light perceptible by thought 1 , the 
\ ~ Light of knowledge, and the true Light, and the Light of 
the world, and the Light of men/ Here Origen expressly 
says, that the Wisdom, or Son of God, is that true Light, 
the Light of the world, the radiance of the eternal Light, 
which Christians, neglecting the sun and the moon and the 
other luminaries of heaven, do on this account worship, be 
cause they have been taught nobly to ascend above all created 
things in their worship. From this it is most manifest, that 
Origen by no means dreamt, with Arius, that the Son of God 
is to be classed among created beings (ra^^iovpy^ara). This 
point he sets forth still more plainly a little afterwards, in these 
words x : " And just as those, who worship the sun, and moon, 
and stars, because their light is sensible and celestial, would 
not worship a spark of fire or a lamp on the earth, seeing, 
as they do, the incomparable superiority of the luminaries 
which they deem worthy to be worshipped, above the light 
of sparks and lamps; so likewise they who have perceived 
how God is Light, and have comprehended how the Son of 
110 God is the true Light, which lighteneth every man that 

[300] cometh into the world/ and who understand also in what 
sense He says, I am the Light of the world/ would not act 
reasonably in worshipping what, in comparison with that 
Light, which is God, is as it were a little spark of the true 
Light, in the sun, the moon, or the stars. And we speak thus 
concerning the sun, and moon, and stars, not as at all dishon 
ouring such vast works of God, nor, like Anaxagoras, saying 
that the sun, and moon, and stars are heated masses ; but as 

e/ceiVcoi/ vofj.iffa.1. eavrovs Karca TTOV elvai, <pws evri, Ka,Ta\a&6vres 8e, irws o vibs 

exovras rt]XiKovTov voyrbv yvcaorfoos rov Qeov (pus a\riQiv6v eo-nv, o </>&mfei 

(pus, Kal (pus a\T)9ivbv, Kal (pus rov iravra avQpuirov epxapevov els rbv Koa- 

Koapov, Kal (f>us ruv avdpuiruv, a/m- /aov, vvvitvrfs Se Kal TTUS ovr6s ^r]<n rb, 

VOLS irpoovcwijffai. p. 237. [10. p. 584.] Eyca dpi rb <j>ws rov K<fo/ioi/ OVK &i> 

1 /cat &(ns-p ol Sik rb Qus aiffOijrbv ev\6yus irpoffKwijffaiev rbv oiovei /3pa- 

Kal ovpdviov slvai trpoaKvvovvrfs tf\ioi>, ^i/j/ ffirivOrjpa, ws irpbs $ws rbv 0ebi/, 

Kal (reXfyw, Kal affrpa, OVK &*/ npovKv- aXtjOivov Qwrbs, eV ^At>, Kal ff^\-t]vri, 

v>h<Tcuev atrivQripa irvpbs, 1) \v X vov eirl Ka l aarpois. Kal OVK wri^ovr4s 76 

yrjs, dpwvTfs r^v atrvyKpirov uTrepoxV Ta TTjAi/caura rov eov Sr]/j.iovpyr]/j.a- 

rcav^ vo^o^vuv a|ta>j/ irpoaKWeiffGou TO, ovS Avafcyopius ptiSpov Sidirvpov 

Tropa rb r&v (T^ivQ^pfav Kal rwv \vxv<av \eyovres eli/at rbv tfXiov, Kal (TeA^j/Tji/, 

(pus OVTWS ol vo-rjo-avTeS) irws 6 sbs Kal a<rrepas, roiavrd (pa/mey irepl i)\iov, 

Object of worship, and ever present everywhere. 229 

having some perception of the divine nature of God, which BOOK n. 
transcends with ineffable superiority, and besides also of that CHP 8 \ IX " 
of His only-begotten Son, who transcends all else." What, 
I ask, could be said more express than this to set forth the 
true Godhead of the Son ? For here Origen explicitly teaches, 
that the Son, with the Father, is that true Light, which is 
God, in comparison of which the very light of the sun is as a 
little spark; and, further, distinctly attributes to the Son, 
equally as to the Father, a Divinity excelling with ineffable 
superiority, which immeasurably surpasses all created beings l ." [301] 
Lastly, from this he again draws the conclusion, that God 1 [see 
the Father and His only-begotten Son alone, (in the unity, note x ^ 
that is to say, of the Holy Ghost, which Origen himself else 
where acknowledges,) are to be honoured with divine worship; 
setting at nought, so far as adoration is concerned, the sun, 
moon, and other luminaries of heaven. In the same pas 
sage, after a few words, he says, that God the Father, of His 
goodness, condescends unto men, not locally (TOTTIK&S), as 
being infinite and not included in space, but by way of 
providence (TrpovorjTi/ccos) ; whilst the Son of God is present 
with His disciples at all times, and not simply during His 
sojourn amongst men; and although, out of His infinite 
love to the human race, He vouchsafed to dwell locally 
also with us, in the human nature which He assumed, still 
is He altogether present every where (-n-avraxov) 2 . Having 2 omnino 
laid down these positions, he proceeds to argue thus for the 
worship of God the Father alone, and of His only-begotten tem - 
Son, in opposition to the adoration of the heavenly bodies 3 ^; aluminum. 
"Seeing that He who has filled heaven and earth, and has said, 
<Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord/ is with us and 
near unto us, (for I believe Him, when He says, < I am a God 

Ka \ urrur > - hind."] 

y &T07rov S > eV rl, rou Tr 
Ka l 

Aottra. 1 1 p. 585. Bp.Bull translated A^et Krfpioj, 6Wos f*ff 

the concluding words, Dei et Filii otov ^ rv 7x d^ros, 

ejus umgemti menarrabili prastaiitia afirf A^ o^J lets 
praecellentem divimtatem, quaa caetera 

i * J- n,iAi. ui/ \3/tc/y injuuwutts. Ae Vfi \\ufiLns I (77 

omma longe post se relinquit "the ^ eu^^a^ M $LoZ & I I 

Divinity of God and H 1S only-begotten ff ^ a , ra frfo, ^ff^vr,, # T iw rcD 

Son excelling with ineffable superiority fortpw.*. 239. [12 p 586 1 
which leaves all other things far be- 

230 The Son declared by Origen to be aye 
ON THE near a t hand, and not a God afar off, saith the Lord/) it is 


STANTIA- absurd to seek to pray to the sun, which is not present to 
all things, or to the moon, or to any of the stars." 

9. In the sixth book, he proves the absolutely divine and 
[302] uncreated nature of the Son in these words, which are clearer 
than any light z ; " For no one can worthily know Him who 

1 ayevrjTov, is ingenerate l and the first-born of all generated 2 nature, as 
non est." 8 [can] the Father who begat Him, nor [can any one know] the 

2 76I/77T77S. Father as [can] the living Word, [Who is] both His Wisdom 

and Truth." In these words, I say, Origen, as if he had him 
self even now been sitting in the assembly of the fathers at 
Nice, distinctly pronounces, in opposition to Arius, that the 

3 ouSe Trot??- Son of God is neither made 3 nor created, (for the word 

ayevrjros (ingenerate) embraces both these within its com 
pass;) moreover he distinctly teaches, that the Father and 
the Son are alike reciprocally comprehensible by each other, 
but absolutely incomprehensible by all creatures. Sandius, 
however, in order to evade the force of this remarkable pas 
sage, pretends that the text of Origen in this place has 
been interpolated and corrupted : " Petavius," he says, 
" proves, on the Trinity, book i. chap. 3, n. 5 and 6," (or 
rather, chap. iv. n. 6 and 7,) " that the passage of Origen, in 
which, in his sixth book against Celsus, he calls the Son ayevrj- 
Tovy ingenerate/ is interpolated, on the ground that Epipha- 
nius, On the heresy of Origen/ censures him for having called 
the Son, in his Commentary on the [first] Psalm, ( a generated 
God 4 . " But Petavius does not there say, much less does he 
prove, that this passage of Origen is interpolated ; nor if the 
Jesuit had so said, would his criticism have been worth much ; 
for all the Greek MSS. which have been discovered any 
where a , agree with the printed copies in this place; and the 

5 sententia. tenor 5 of the passage is altogether in accordance with the 
( [303] uniform teaching of these books against Celsus, in which 

6 TWV STJ- Origen throughout expressly excepts the Son of God from 
JwCrflw?" the class of created beings 6 , as is clear from the testimonies 

111 which we have already adduced. And as to the objection which 

1 o&Tf 7&p rov ayevyrov Kal Trda-fjs p. 287. [17. p. 643.] 

yevrjTris (pvff^das irp<ar6roKov /car aiav a [In the Benedictine edition it is 

etSeVcu TIS Svvarai, ws 6 yfvvrjcra.s avrbv mentioned that the reading rbv ytvvr)- 

Uar^p, ovre TOI/ narepa, ws 6 e^uij/ux * r ^ v occurs in one MS. alone, the second 

\6yos, Kol ffoffria O.VTOV, KOL a\r)0eia. English one.] 

difficulties from a contrary statement of Epiphanius. 231 

Petavius brings from Epiphanius, that Origen in his Commen- BOOK n. 
tary on the first Psalm had called the Son of God yevyrov 

eov (a generated God), Sandius could not have been ignorant, ORIGEN. 
that the great Huet had given a luminous reply to it in his 
Origeniana ii. p. 43 b . " Origen/ he says, "in calling the 
Son ryevrjTov Oebv, should be taken to mean, f one that has 
a principle of His being and an origin of existence 1 / It is 1 qui prin 
common, indeed, to the Son with created beings to have a 
principle and origin of His being ; but the mode 2 of emana- 
tion and going forth from that principle is quite different ; 2 ratio> 
for the Son goes forth by an eternal generation; created 
beings go forth by creation in time ..... And thus the Son 
may be called ayevrjros, one who has not His being from any 
other, that is, as a work, or a thing made, or as a thing cre 
ated ; and also ^evrfros, one who has His being from another, 
that is, as a thing begotten and a Son. Thus Origen, who is 
charged with having called the Son yevijrbs eos, .... yet in 
his sixth book against Celsus calls the Son ayevrfTos" 
A little afterwards Huet subjoins these words; "When 
he (Origen) called the Son yevrjrbs, he meant to say, that 
He has a principle of His being: Jerome, on the contrary, 
interpreted [him as meaning] that the Son was made. 
For he loved thus to interpret the words of Origen in the 
worse sense. In the same way Epiphanius says, that he 
would approve the use of the word yevrjTos in others, but 
that he condemned it in Origen." Much more may be 
read on this subject in Huet, in the same place. I return 
to the books of Origen against Celsus. In this same sixth 
book, when Celsus says, that God is not even comprehen 
sible by reason, Origen replies : "I make a distinction as |_ 304 ] 

b Origenes, inquit, cum Filium ap- nempe tanquam res genita et Films. 

pellat yei>7]Tbv eiv, sic accipe, qui prin- Sic Origenes, qui yev^r bv &ebv appel- 

cipium sui habet et existendi initium. lasse Filium insimulatur . . . Filium 

Filio quidem commune est cum creatis tamen a-ytvr)Tov vocat lib. vi. contra 

rebus sui principium ac originem ha- Gels. . . . Cum Filium clixit (Origenes) 

bere ; emanandi autem ex illo principle yej/rjrbj/, id sibi voluit, habere ipsum sui 

ac prodeundi ratio plane diversa est ; principium ; contra Hieronymus expo- 

prodit enim Filius per generationem suit, esse factum. Nempe sic verba 

aeternam ; prodeunt creatae res per Origenis in pessimum sensum tra- 

temporariam creationem. . . . Atque ita here amabat. Ita Epiphanius vocis 

Filius dici potest ay^rjros, qui ab alio yevrjTbs usum in aliis probaturum se 

non habet ut sit, nempe tanquam opus dicit, in Origene damnare. [Lib. ii. 

sen res facta, vol tanquam res creata ; Quaest. ii. 23.] 
et yfvrjTos, qui ab alio habet ut sit, c SmcrTeAA.o/uat r5 ffrj/J.aLi 6/j.^of, KOI 

232 The Son alone able to comprehend the Father. 

ON THE to what is meant, and say, if [it be meant, comprehensible] 
STANTIA"- ^7 reason (\6yos) that is in us, whether abiding in [the 
mind ^] or also P ut fortn P n sound 2 ,] we will also say that 
Grod is not comprehensible 3 by reason (\6yosr), but if [we 
use the expression \6<yo$] having in mind, the Word 
(Aoyos) was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, 
and the Word was God/ then we declare that by this Aoyos 
God is comprehensible." As much as to say, God cannot be 
comprehended except by God, nor what is infinite except by 
what is infinite; from which it follows that the Word (6 Aoyos), 
inasmuch as He is able to comprehend God, is Himself God, 
which also Origen, together with John the Evangelist, affirms 
in express terms. Every one then must perceive how dia 
metrically opposed this declaration of Origen is to the blas 
phemy of Arius. For Arius, in a work entitled Thalia, (as 
Athanasius states, in his work on the Synods 6 ,) said, " It is 

Qixvid- not possible for the Son to trace out 4 the Father, Who He is 
by Himself, for the Son Himself does not know His own sub 
stance." A passage precisely similar follows, in the same 
book [against Celsus vi.], after some interval f ; "And who 
else is able to save the soul of man, and to bring it to God 
who is over all, but God the Word ? who being in the be 
ginning with God, on account of those who have been joined 
unto the flesh, and have become the very same as flesh, became 
flesh, in order that He may be comprehended by those who 

\6yos. were unable to behold Him, in that He was [the] Word 5 , 

[305] and was with God, and was God." Lastly, Origen, soon 
after, in the same passage, calls the Son, equally with the 
Father, great and incomprehensible; and moreover affirms 
that the Father had made the only -begotten Son a partner 
even of His own greatness. We shall quote the passage 
entire in a more suitable place hereafter. 

<j>i)fu, el fj.ev \6yoj r$ ev fifjuv, etre ev- ovffiav OVK o?8e//. [15. vol. i. p. 729.] 
SiaOcTtp, fire Kal irpO(popiK(p, Kal TjfJifts { ris 5 a\Xos ffwcrai Kal irpoua.yaye iv 

<})T}(TOfj.v, 6ri OVK earriu z(f>iKTOs r<p \6ytf rif eirl iraai <p Svvarai r^v rov avOptio- 

6 eos el 8e j/orxravres rb, Ev apxfj ~?\v irov ^U^T?J/, ^ 6 &ebs \6yos ; offTis ev 

6 \6yos, Kal 6 \6yos fy irpos rbv 0ebi/, a-pxfi ^pta rov Qeov &v, Sto TOVS KO\\T]~ 

Kal ebs "i]v 6 \6yos, airo(paii 6(j.e6a, 6ri Oevras rrj (rapKl Kal yevo^tvovs 6irep 

rovrcf} r<$ \6ycp etyucrSs iffriv 6 0e^y. fap^, eyevero 0"ap, tva x^P^V ^ 7r ^ 

p. 320. [65. p. 682.] ruv ^ ^vva^vcav avrbv fi\eiretv KaOb 

e aSvvara yap avrip (afivvarov vly, \6yos ~fiv, Kal irpbs tbv -fiv, Kal &ebs 

Bull) rbi/ Tlartpa e^vidtrai, 6s eVrif fy. [68. p. 681.] 
e^) eawrou avroy yup 6 ulbs ri]v euuroO 

Of the Father s creating all things through the Son. 233 

10. You see, reader, how repeatedly and most openly BOOK ir. 
Origen asserts the true Divinity of the Son, in his books A 9 P j ] 1 o 
against Celsus, which are universally allowed to be the QRIGEN. 
most genuine, pure, and uncorrupted of all his writings. 
Who now would suspect that out of these very writings any 
thing could be gathered, to shew that Origen was favourable 
to the Arian blasphemy? And yet Petavius^ alleges against 
Origen, as savouring of Arianism, a passage out of his sixth 
book against Celsus, in which he wrote, that 11 "the Son of 
God, the Word, was the immediate Creator 1 , and, as it were, 

the actual framer 2 of the world ; whilst the Father of the 

Word was primarily 3 Creator, by reason of His having given 2 
commandment to His Son, the Word, to make the world/ 
I have, however, already shewn how these words are to be 
understood, in chap. v. 6. [p. 171.] of this book, in 
treating of the doctrine of Irenseus, to which I refer the 
reader. It is, indeed, so far from being an Arian tenet, that 
all things were created by the Father issuing, as it were, His 
mandate as the Supreme Maker, through the Son per 
forming the Father s commandment and will, that even 
catholic doctors, who lived after the council of Nice, and [306] 
who were the keenest opponents of the Arian heresy, did 
not hesitate to affirm it throughout their writings, as we 
shewed in the same place out of Petavius himself. To the 
writers there adduced, I would here add one other, Hilary ; 
who, in his fourth book on the Trinity, treating of the words 
in Genesis i., " Let us make man in our image," &c. speaks 
thus 1 , " By that which is said, Let us make man/ [it appears, 
that] the origin is from Him, from whom the Word also 
hath His beginning 4 ; but in that God made man after 4 C0 epit. 
the image of God/ He also is signified through whom the 
work [of creation] is accomplished." Then again a little 
after; "In that it is said, Let us make/ both the commanding 
and the execution are made 5 equal." And again, presently 5 exaequa- 
after, concerning Wisdom, or the Son of God, rejoicing with Hg w ^ c 


g De Trinit. i. 4. 5. 678.] and He who 

h rbi* /j.ev 7rpo<rex<s $r)fj.iovpybv e?z/at i Per id quod dictum est, Faciamus executes 

riv vlbv rov eou \6yov, ital cbtnrepel hominem, ex eo origo est, ex quo coepit are made 

avrovpybv rov K6tr/j.ov T~bv Se Harepa et Sermo; in eo vero quod Deus ad equal. 

TOV \6yov, TO> TrpoffTeTaxevai T<p viy imaginem Dei fecit, significatur etiam 

\6yct) -jroLrjcrai rbv Ktiffpov, e?j/at is, per quern consummatur operatic. . . . 

irpurws 8i)fjiiovpy6v. p. 317. [60. p. In eo quod dicitur, Faciamus, et jussio 

234 Origination attributed to the Father, Ministry to 

ON THE His Father in the works of creation, he has these words : 
STANTIA- "Wisdom hath taught [us] the cause of Her rejoicing; She 
was re J icill g because of the Father s joy, who joyed in the 
- completion of the world and in the children of men. For it 
is written, And God saw that they were good/ She [Wis 
dom] is glad that Her works, wrought through Herself 
at His command, are well-pleasing to the Father." These 
last words of Hilary express fully the meaning of the pas 
sage in Origen at which Petavius cavils. This is further 
to be observed, that Origen expressly softened down his 
assertion, lest it should seem harsh to any one, by the 
adverb wcnrepel, f as it were/ "The Son," his words are, "is 

1 qui velut the immediate Creator of the world, since He was 1 , as it ivere, 
fabricani! 6 Himself the actual framer of it;" by which caution he meant, 
Lat. Vers. without doubt, to meet the error of those who refused to 

admit the undivided operation of the Father and the Son in 
the same work of creation. But what is to be the end of this 
bold and reckless temper of scholastic theologians in passing 
their censure on the statements of the ancients ? Certainly, if 
[307] he, who has said that the Father, as the Father, is the pri 
mary Creator of the world, who made the universe through 
His Son, is to be accounted an Arian, scarcely will Paul 
himself be pure from the stain of Arianism; seeing that 
in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, viii. 6, he thus treats 

2 partibus. of the shares 2 , so to say, which the Father and the Son had 

respectively in the creation and renewal of all things: "To us 

3 e ol. there is one God, the Father, of whom 3 are all things, and we 

4 Si ov. in Him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom 4 are all 

things, and we through Him." For it is evident that the ex 
pression ef ov, of whom/ denotes the primary cause. Hence 
also, Theodore Beza makes this annotation on the passage : 
" Whensoever the Father is distinguished from the Son, ori 
gination is attributed to the former." All these statements, 
I mean, are to be referred altogether to that subordination 
of the Son, by which He is subjected to the Father " as His 
Author," (I here again use the very words of Hilary,) of 

exequatur, et factum. . . . Causam lae- est enim, Et vidit Deus quia bona stint. 

titise suse Sapientia docuit; laetatur ob Placere Patri opera sua gaudet, PER SE 

laetitiam Patris, in pcrfectione mundi EX PRTECEPTO EJUS EFFECTA. p. 39, 

et in filiis hominum lijetantis. Scriptum 40. [ 20, 21. p. 839, 810. J 

the Son; true and false senses of this statement. 235 

which we shall treat more at length in the fourth book. BOOK it. 
But what is to be said of this, that in the Nicene Creed io, n. 
itself we are commanded to believe, first, "In one God ORIGEN. 
the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and in 
visible :" secondly, " in one Lord Jesus Christ, &c., by 1 l per. 
whom all things were made ? " I suppose, that if the 
Nicene Fathers had not been assembled in an oecumenical 
council, which it is an act of impiety to contradict, they 
would hardly have escaped the severe censure of the Jesuit 
Petavius, for these expressions. To sum up the whole subject 
in few words; Whosoever affirms, that God the Father, as the 
fountain of Godhead, and, therefore, the origin of all the 
divine operations, created the world from Himself 2 through 2 aseipso 
His Son, and that He is in consequence the primary Maker 
of all things, he surely is no way to be charged with Arian 
heresy, unless indeed we be ready to fasten the charge of 
Arianism on all the ancient fathers of the Church, and even 
on the divinely inspired writers themselves. But this would 
certainly be characteristic of Arian blasphemy, if any one 
should teach, that the Father created all things through the 
Son, as through an instrument extraneous to Himself, or as [308] 
through some power created before all other things, and 
alien from His own essence, an impiety which never en 
tered the mind of Origen even in a dream, as is evident from 
the passages we have adduced above. 

11. But there are some other statements in these very 
books against Celsus, which even Huet notes as wrong, and 
marks with condemnation 3 ; the principal of which we shall n 
discuss. In the first place, Huetf adduces, as very difficult of v er u 
explanation, these words of Origen k : " But if any one from transfigit. 
these words shall be distracted with fear, that we are deserting 
to those, who deny that the Father and the Son are two hypo- 
stases 4 , let him give heed to that saying, And of all them that * M O ^ 
believed the heart and the soul was one/ in order that he may " 
understand those words, I and My Father are one. And 
again 1 , "We therefore worship the Father of the Truth, and 

J Origeniana ii. 32. [Quaest. 2. 3.] trrevffdvrav y KapSia /col 97 fy>xh pfat 

k et Se rts e /c TOVTCDI/ Trepto-Trao-erjo-eTat, foa Qewpt\<ry T&, y& KOI 6 irari/p ei/ 

H.T] TTTJ avro/jLoXov/JLev Trpbs TOVS avcupovv- 4(Tfj.ev. Lib. viii. contr. Cels., p. <3bO. 

ras Svo clvai u7ro(TTa<reis trarepa Kal vibv, [12. p. 760.] f 

eWTTjo-arw T, "H*/ 5e iravrw rw TTI- 1 Q^ffK^vo^v ovv -rui> Trarepa rr,s 

236 Different senses of the word vTroaraa-is in early times; 

cuB two thin S s in 

STANTIA- Du * One in unanimity, and agreement, and identity of will. 

Up n these P assa S es tne learned writer observes thus; "He 
says that tne Bather and the Son are two 2 in hypostasis, 
one in agreement and unanimity/ But vTroa-raa-ts in early 
times was ordi narily used for ova la (substance) by heathen 
and Christian writers. Jerome, in his 57th Epistle to Damasus 
says, The whole school of secular literature knoweth of no 
[309] other sense of vTroaravis than that of ovaia\ In this sense 
the Nicene fathers understood it, in this sense did those of 
Sardica; in this sense also is it probable that Origen under 
stood it." I reply first : The words {nroaraais and ovala 
were variously employed in early times, at least by Christians. 
I mean that viroo-Taais was sometimes taken by them for 
what we call ova La (substance), and, vice versa, the word 
ova-la for that which we call inroaraais (person) : sometimes 
viroaraais was used by the ancients, even by those who pre 
ceded the council of Nice, for that which we at this day 
designate person or subsistence. That the word {nroardais 
is occasionally 3 used by the ancients to signify that which 
we call ova-la is not only confessed but contended for by 
Huet; although (candidly to confess the truth) I do not 
remember that I ever found the word thus used by any 
catholic writer, in treating of the most Holy Trinity, before 
the Nicene council, or for some time after it. It is however 
most certain that the word ovaCa was sometimes taken by 
these very writers, for what we call Maraais. Thus Pierius, 
martyr and presbyter, the teacher of the martyr Pamphilus, 
though his views concerning the Father and the Son were 
catholic, yet made the statement, (as is related by Photius,) 
that the Father and the Son are two ovaiai, and <f>vaei, S 
meanin 8 b 7 tne words ousia and nature 4 , hypostasis ; as is 
evident, Photius likewise says, from what precedes and 
follows. We have observed above", that the word <f> V ais 
was used by Clement of Alexandria in this sense, though 
like the term ovala, it has in other cases 5 a wider appli- 

elas, Kal rbv v fr v r^ v ^Q^v, fora [Epist. xv. vol. i. p 39 1 
ry uTroerra Trpdy^ara, & 54 rfj m Biblioth. Cod. 119. [See Routh 

K al rr, av^wia Ka l T fj r*vr6- Beliq. Sacr., vol. Hi. p 215 ! -B ? see 

. ., . . - 

rovfrfowTos.-te. 751.] the whole passage quoted below , 

1 lota secularium literarum scliola 1. 

mliil aliud fatffracriv nisi ovaiav novit. [di. vi. 6. p. us 

used for a thing subsisting per se, or a Person. 237 

cation. Arid that this word was taken in the same sense BOOK n. 
by Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, and even by Athana- CH ^ A I ] IX 
sius himself, is shewn by Petavius, de Trin. iv. 1. n. 2, 3. OIUGEN 
Lastly, (which bears more nearly on our subject,) it is cer 
tain from many instances that the word vTroo-racris was at 
times used by the primitive doctors of the Church, even those 
who preceded the council of Nice, to signify a subsistence 1 , subsisien- 
or a single thing subsisting per se, which in things endued 
with intelligence is the same as person. Tertullian, in his 
treatise against Praxeas, wishing to assert the personal sub 
sistence 2 of the Son in opposition to those who denied that 2 subsisten- 
He was a distinct Person from the Father, affirms of the tiam> 
Son of God, that He is "a substance" and "a substantive 
thing." Thus, in the seventh chapter : "Do you then, 
(you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance 3 , con- 3 aliquam 
structed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom 4 ? ^f an ~ 
Certainly I do. For you are unwilling to hold Him to be * Sph-itu 
substantive in reality 5 , by having a substance of His own 6 , et Spphiae 

f * ^ > tradition e. 

so as that He may be regarded as a thing and a person 7 > 5 substan- 
and so, being constituted second to God [the Father], be ^ vum in 
able to make two 8 , Father and Son, God arid the Word, o per SUD - 

For, you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound stantl . aj 

* * . . proprieta- 

of the mouth, or (as grammarians teach) air struck against 9 , tem. 

intelligible on being heard, but, for the rest, a sort of void 7 P ersonil 


and empty and incorporeal thing? I, on the contrary, & ,j uos 
contend, that nothing empty and void could have come 9 offensus. 
forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that ^ m 
which is empty and void ; nor could that be devoid of sub 
stance, which has proceeded from so great a substance," &c. 
Again, in the 26th chapter, treating of the distinction be 
tween the Father and the Son, he speaks to this effect; 
" [But if He be] God of God, as a substantive thing, [He] will 

Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substan- ligibis auditu, cseterum vacuum nescio 
tiam esse Sermonem, Spiritu et sopliise quid, et inane, et incorporale ? At ego 
traditione coustructara ? plane. Non nihil dico de Deo inane et vacuum pro- 
vis enim eum substantivum habere in dire potuisse, ut non de inani et vacuo 
re, per substantial proprietatem, ut res prolatum ; nee carere substantia, quod 
et persona qusedam videri possit, et ita de tanta substantia processit, &c. . . . 
capiat secundus a Deo constitutus duos [Quod si] Deus Dei tanquam substan- 
efficere, Patrem et Filium, Deum et tiva res, non erit ipse Deus ; sed hacte- 
Sermonem. Quid est enim, dices, ser- nus Deus, quia ex ipsius Dei substantia, 
mo, nisi vox et sonus oris, et (sicut qua et substantiva res est, &c. [p. 503, 
grammatici tradunt) aer offensus, intel- 504.] 

238 Instances of viroo-Taais used in the sense of Person, 



3 ets 7 pes 
/m.e/j.fpia - 
P.ZVO.S viro- 

not be God [the Father] Himself; but thus far God, be 
cause [He is] of the substance of God Himself, whereby also 
He is a substantive thing." He goes on to say, that wisdom 
and providence are not "substantive things" or "substances," 
that is, hypostases (viroardcreis) . For this form of expression 
Tertullian, the known imitator of the Greeks, seems alto 
gether to have derived from the Greek Fathers, translating 
the Greek word viroo-rao-is by the Latin substantia and res 
substantiva; though the Latins had, besides 1 , a word of their 
own, even in the time of Tertullian, for expressing a sub 
sistence in the divine essence, namely, the word persona, 
which is sometimes used by Tertullian himself in the same 
treatise. Hippolytus, who was next to Tertullian in date, 
and earlier than Origen, in a passage which has been already 
quoted? by us, says that the flesh or human nature in Christ 
does not subsist by itself, but has its subsistence (TTJV VTTO- 
(TTaa-iv) in the Word, that is to say, subsists in the Word. 
Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, in his answer 
to the fourth question of Paul of Samosata, speaks thus of 
the three persons of the Holy Trinity q ; "The two hypo 
stases (that is, of the Father and of the Son) are insepa 
rable 1 ", and also the insubsisting 2 Spirit of the Father, 
which was in the Son." And it seems to me that by this 
passage of Dionysius of Alexandria the opinion of his name 
sake and contemporary, Dionysius of Rome, is by all means 
to be explained ; for the latter in his Epistle against the 
Sabellians, [preserved] in Athanasius 8 , after refuting them, 
proceeds to confute those who separated the Godhead " into 
three divided hypostases 3 ." Petavius, indeed, on the (Trinity, 
iv. 1. 5) would have it that the word inroa-Tacris in this pas 
sage was used in a more general signification for ovaia : led 
to this, I suppose, by the consideration, that Dionysius 
professes his dissent from those, who divided the Godhead 
into three hypostases. But this is nothing to the point : 
for Dionysius does not blame those against whom he argues 

P See 8. 5. of this book [p. 213, 
where I observed that Hippolytus wrote 
(TvaraffLS) not inroffracris. B.] 

i ai Suo vTroffrdcTfiS a^wpiffroi, Kai rb 
fWiroaraTOV TOV Trarpbs irv^v^a, o r\v eV 
T(f v!$. [p. 230.] 

See Theodoret, E. H. i. 4. 

s els rpeis (J./j.e purvey as 
Athanasius de Syn. Nic. Decretis, p. 
275. edit. Paris. 1C27. [vol. i. p. 231. 
and in Routh s Rel. Sacr.,vol. iii. p. 
179, &c. ; see the passage quoted be 
low, cap. xi. l.J 

by Hippolytus, and the Dionysii of Rome and Alexandria. 239 

simply for making three hypostases in the Godhead, but BOOK n. 
on this account only, that they thought that those three 

hypostases were divided (/jie/jLepio-fjievas) . And afterwards ORIGEN. 
in the same passage he expresses this more fully, when he [312] 
says again, "that the same heretics divided the Godhead 1 into 
three hypostases, foreign to, and altogether separate from, 
each other." Very ill, therefore, has Petavius translated 
the Greek of Dioiiysius into Latin, as distinctas hypostases, 
(distinct hypostases). Against these heretics, Dionysius 
in the next place proceeds to lay down, that u " the divine 
Word is made one ] with the God of the universe, and that 
the Holy Ghost reposes 2 in God and hath His dwelling in 
Him ;" that is to say, that the Three Divine Persons are in- 
timately and mutually conjoined with Each Other by an 114 
inexplicable kind of circumincession 3 , and that They reci- 3 inexpli- 
procally, as it were, enter into Each Other, so that One 
cannot in any wise be separated from Another \ but on this 
point we shall say more hereafter. The reader may see boo k ivT 
this passage from Dionysius quoted entire in chap. xi. 1 4 - 14 -J 
of this book. When, therefore, Dionysius of Rome denies 
that there are in the Godhead three divided and separate 
hypostases, he clearly meant the same as the other Diony 
sius, when he affirms that the Father and the Son are two 
hypostases by no means separate [from each other] , and that 
the Holy Ghost also is an hypostasis subsisting in the Son 
Himself, and, consequently, not disjoined either from the 
Son or from the Father. It is plain that both alike confessed 
a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead ; both alike denied 
a division or separation of hypostases. There is, however, 
another passage of Dionysius of Alexandria, which throws 
the clearest light on this subject; it is quoted by Basil the 
Great, in his treatise concerning the Holy Spirit, chap. 29 w , 
where he introduces Dionysius arguing to this effect, in his 
Apology against the Sabellians, near the middle, " If, because [313] 
hypostases are Three, they say that they are divided, Three 

affi Kexupur/J-evaS) [Siaipovvras p.tfji.spia iJ.tvas tlvai Aryovcrt, rpzis elcri, 

TW ayiav /j.ovd5a.~\ Ibid. KO.V ^ OehoHTiv, t) T^JV 6eiai> rpidSa 

u T}vu>(r6ai yap avayKt) rip 0(p rS>v TravrsXws aj/eAerwcraf. Opera Basilii, 

6\uv T*bv Qeiov \6yov f^iXo^p^v Se torn. ii. p. 358. edit. Paris. 1637. 

T< 0e< Ka\ fvSicuTaffBai 8e TO ayiov [Vol. iii. p. 61. Op. Dionys., p. 98, 

Trj/eC/ia. Ibid. 99.J 


used for Person, in the Nicene Anathema ; 


2 eTTKTTT]- 

p.T]i> ai/vTr6- 


3 evtpyeiav 



5 t Storpo- 




6 or " es 
e | erepas 


trecos r) 

there are, (though they would not have it so,) or else let 
them entirely do away with the divine Trinity." From 
these words it is clearly gathered, that amongst the catholics 
of the age of Dionysius it was a fixed and settled point, that 
there are three hypostases in the Godhead l ; and that the 
Sabellians thought that it followed from that position, that 
there were three divided hypostases, as being unable to 
conceive of three distinct Persons subsisting in the divine 
essence without division. This consequence, however, both 
the Dionysii entirely reject in the passages which have 
been adduced. To proceed. The six bishops, contempora 
ries of the two Dionysii, who wrote an epistle x to Paul of 
Samosata, from the council of Antioch, deny in it, in op 
position to Paul and Sabellius, that the Son of God is " the 
unsubsisting 2 knowledge" of the Father; and in the same 
place they call the Son of God Himself "the living and insub- 
sisting energy 3 " of God the Father. Who then can doubt, 
that these bishops meant that the Son also was a distinct 
hypostasis 4 from the Father? Especially since Dionysius of 
Alexandria, in the same age, used the terms rrjv vTroaracnv and 
TO evvTrocTTaTov as having the same meaning, as is evident 
from the passage above quoted. Alexander, bishop of Alex 
andria, in an epistle to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, 
written before the council of Nice y , seems to have taken the 
word in the same sense, by writing to this effect on the words 
of the Evangelist, John i. 1 ; " For he set forth His (the 
Son s) peculiar hypostasis 5 , when he said, In the beginning 
was the Word, and the Word was with God. " And, if trust 
is to be placed in the great Basil rather than in the modern 
Jesuit, Petavius, the Nicene fathers understood the word 
in the same sense, that is, according to the ancient use of it 
in the Church, when in their creed they anathematized those, 
who said that the Son was of " another hypostasis or sub 
stance 6 " than the Father. For Basil, in his 78th epistle, stat 
ing how Marcellus of Ancyra and some other abettors of the 

* Bibl. Patr., torn. xi. [Routh. Rel. 
Sacr. , vol. ii. p. 469. B. [ The passage is 
this : 5t ov 6 iraT^p irtivTa. TreTrony/cei , 
cos Si bpyavov, ov8 cos 5t eTrtaT^uTjs 
yevvi](ra.vros fj.fv TOV ira- 

fw-rroaraTov, evepyovvra ra iravra eV 

y T^V yap IS 1 6rpoTTov avrov virdaracriv 
ijAcoo e//, eiTrcoj , Ev apxfj -f]v 6 \6yos, 
Kal 6 \6yos i\v irpbs rbv t6v, /c.A. In 

rpbs Tbv vibv els tycrav tvepytiav, Kal Theodoret. E. H. i. 4. [p. 12.] 

there distinguished from Substance ; against Petavius. 241 

Sabellian heresy, had sought support from these words of BOOK n. 
the Nicene council, denies that the words ovaia and VTTO- CI A n. IX " 
<TTacrL$ were used by the fathers as parallel 1 and as signifying ORIGEN. 
the same. He proves this by the following argument 2 ; " For l f><p^- 
if the words had expressed one and the same idea, what 
need was there of both ? but it is evident that, inasmuch as 
there were some who denied that [the Son] is of the ovo-ia 
of the Father, and others who said, not only that He was not 
of the ova LCI of the Father, but that He was of some other 
vTroo-racr^, they thus renounced both opinions as alien from 
the mind of the Church." I should wish here, however, by 
the way, to examine briefly the chief arguments, by which 
Petavius a has endeavoured to overthrow this view of the 
great Basil ; " First," he says, " it is quite certain, that the 
fathers added this clause of the Creed in opposition to the 
dogma of Arius alone." I might have asked Petavius, 
whence it is so certain? Surely it is most certain, that 
the [Nicene] fathers in their Creed, although they intended 
primarily to impugn the dogma of Arius, do yet in some 
places touch on the heresies of others. For instance, when 
they define that all things were made by the Son, they do [315] 
not aim a blow at the Arians, who never denied this, but at 
the Ebionites, Artemonites, Samosatenes, and other heretics 
of the same stamp. But suppose we allow that that clause 
was added by the Fathers in opposition to the dogma of the 
Arians alone, (which I think to be most true,) what follows ? 
" The Arians," says Petavius, " did not teach that the Son 
derived His origin from another person 2 than that of the 2 ab alia 
Father." Neither, I answer, did any one of the Arians teach periona 
that the Son derived His origin of 3 another substance, if we 3 ex alia 
would speak strictly and exactly. But, as all the Arians sub ^ tia - 
denied that the Son was born of 4 the substance of the 4 natum e . 
Father, so some denied, that He was in any way born O f 55natumex - 
the Father Himself, or of the hypostasis of the Father. That 
is, there were two main classes of Arian fanatics ; the one 
acknowledged, indeed, that the Son was born 6 in a manner o natu in. 

svvoiav at fyuvul, ris XP e a ^\ v fKarepuv t us oAAorpia rov e/ , , , 

&AAa ST?AOV on, els r&v IJL\V apvov/j.evooi jj.ct.ros airr]y6pevo"av. [JEp. cxxv. 1. vol. 
rl> e /c T^S ovffias el^ai rov Trarpbs, rS>v iii. p. 215.] 
5e \ey6vruv, ovre e/c rrjs ovffias, aAA" e^ a De Trin. iv. 1. 6. 


turn. 86 

242 Hypostasis inserted against theArians; Substance* against 

ON THE peculiar [to Himself] of the Hypostasis of the Father Itself, 
S^NTIA". not, as the other creatures, made out of nothing, but yet 
LITY OF denied that the Son was begotten 1 of the substance of the 

TT . , . , f. 2 xl 

Father, regarding Him only as a kind of power ot the 
Father, not an effluence 3 of the Father s substance ; the other 

class > in order to avoid admittin S that the Son was begotten 
in a manner peculiar [to Himself] of the Father Himself, 
affirmed in round terms, that He, as the other creatures, 

4 ex non was made simply out of nothing 4 . The former class were 
bus! G1 called Semiarians, and their opinion is best explained in 

few words by Petavius b himself in another place, out of their 
own Confession, in Epiphanius, Hseres. Ixxiii. n. 2. &c., in 
the following terms ; " In this," he says, " they bring for 
ward many things very like the Catholic doctrine ; especially 
in that they deny that the Son is a creature, on the ground 
that He is a true Son, and produced by a true generation, 
and not by that figurative one, whereby created beings are 

5 genitae a. said to be begotten by 5 God; on the contrary, that [the 
[316] Father] is truly a Father, whom they confess also to have 

6 genuisse begotten the Son, of Himself 6 , and that before all thought, 

sese and all reckonings, and times, and ages. These expressions 
are plausible in appearance, and approach very near to the 
Catholic Confession. But there is yet that wanting in them, 

7 caput. wherein consists the strength and chief point 7 of the faith, 

in that they do not acknowledge that the Son was begotten 

8 e^rrjs "by the Father of His substance 8 , but of the likeness of the 
"TKT TJS Father 9 , namely, by His generative energy 10 ; since they 

affirm that the Father has various modes of acting 11 , one 
creative 12 , another generative, whereby He produces the Son. 
Then they lay it down, that there is not the same essence 
" actiones> in Both, but two mutually like each other." The Nicene 


V. fathers, therefore, strike a blow at both these parties of the 

3 e| &\\t]s Arians, in the words, " of another hypostasis or substance 13 ;" 

CMS $ that is to say, both at those who denied that the Son was 

ov<ri as . in anv wise bom 14 of the Person of the Father, or of the 

Father Himself, and affirmed that He was made out of 

nothing ; as also at those who, while they confessed that the 

15 natum. g on was born 15 in a manner peculiar [to Himself] of the 

Father Himself, did yet deny altogether that He was be- 

*> De Trin. i. 10. 7. 

the Semiarians. Clauses of Anathema not equivalent. 243 

gotten of the substance of the Father, and that He was in BO-)K n. 
consequence of one substance 1 with the Father. To put CHA i] IX * 
the question beyond all controversy, the Confession of the 
Arians, which was presented to the Emperor Constans, by 
the hands of Maris, Theodoras, and Mark, and is recited 
by Athanasius, in his work on the Synods of Ariminum 
and Seleucia, concludes with these words ; " Those, how 
ever, who say that the Son is out of what existed not, 
or of another hypostasis, and not of God, and that there 
ever was a time, when He was not, the Catholic Church 
regards as aliens." The same thing is evident from the [317] 
Confession sent into Italy, by the hands 2 of Eudoxius, Mar- 2 per. 
tyrius, and others, and from the Sirmian Confession, which 
follow in the same place in Athanasius. Now you see here, 
that those Arians denied that the Son was created, or made, 
out of nothing, and acknowledged that the Son was born 3 3 natum. 
e f vTroo-rdo-ew, of the hypostasis of God the Father, in other 
words, of 4 God Himself; whilst it is yet most certain that 4 ex. 
these same heretics never acknowledged, and never would 
have acknowledged that the Son was begotten ef ovalas, 
of the substance of the Father. Rightly, therefore, and 
learnedly did Basil distinguish between the words vTrocrTacris 
and ovaia, in the Nicene Creed; and quite inconsiderately 
does the Jesuit Petavius carp at that observation of the great 
doctor. And as to the argument adduced by Basil that the 
Nicene fathers would not have employed those words to 
gether in so short a creed, had the meaning of both been 
the same Petavius s reply to it is easily refuted. "If," 
he says, " there were force in that reasoning of Basil, neither 
would this be free from objection, that in the same creed, 
after the fathers had pronounced an anathema against such 
as held, that there was a time when the Son was not/ they 
immediately add what has the same meaning, and that be 
fore He was begotten He was not ; and again, that He was 
made out of what existed not 5 . " But I deny that the words, nu m s 
" He was not before He was begotten," have entirely the t s ^ b u s s tan " 
same signification as the preceding clause, "there was a time 

c rovs 8e \eyovras e OVK ovrwv rbv al&v), Sre OVK "t\v, a\\OTpiovs olSev TJ 
vibv, ?) e Ttpas vTrodrdffecas, Kal ^ e w KaOo\iKr) fKK\-n<ria. torn. i. p. 895. 
rov OeoQ, Kal (grt) fy xp^os TTOTC (*) [ 25. vol. i. p. 738.] 

244 Hypostasis used for Person in History of Nicene Council; 


1 punctum 

2 latet. 


3 rpidSa 


4 viroffrd- 
aas, tfroi 



6 tvvtrdp- 

when He was not." For the former sentence attributes, in 
definitely, a beginning to the existence of the Son ; the se 
cond determines the very point 1 , so to speak, of that be 
ginning. There is indeed a sense latent 2 in the latter words, 
which has escaped the acuteness even of Petavius ; what that 
is, however, we shall explain at large, in a more suitable 
place, hereafter d . Neither is it true, that in the following 
words, " that He was made out of what existed not," there is 
again a mere repetition. For among the crowd of Ariaris, 
there were some (as Petavius himself has observed in another 
place) whom Theodoret (lib. iv. de Hser.) says were after 
wards called Psathyriani, who, as they said that the Father 
had ever existed, so [they said] that the Son had been ever 
created by Him ; for that with God to beget is nothing else 
than to create. They did not assert, that there was a time 
when the Son was not ; yet they maintained that the Son 
was made out of what existed not. Further also, Gelasius of 
Cyzicus, in his Acts of the Council of Nice, (part ii. c. 12,) 
represents Hosius as making reply, by the command and de 
cree of the whole council, and declaring a Trinity of hy po 
st ases 3 ; which the fathers afterwards make profession of 
through Leontius the bishop, (ibid., c. 21.) Accordingly 
Anastasius Sinaita stated that the Nicene fathers had de 
fined, that 6 "there are three Hypostases, or Persons 4 , in 
the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity." The authority of 
these writers, however, Petavius set at nought, relying, 
forsooth, on those arguments by which he groundlessly 
boasts that he has refuted the opinion of Basil. Yet cer 
tainly Eusebius of Csesarea, (who was present at the coun 
cil of Nice, and than whom no one knew better the ancient 
use of the word vTrocrrao-ts in the Church,) in his Letter 
to Eustathius of Antioch, acknowledged, (according to So- 
crates f ,) "that the Son of God is substantive 5 and subsist 
ing 6 , and that there is one God in three hypostases." And 
in this sense (I conceive) the word vTroo-racris would have 

d Bookiii. 9. 2, &c.^ 

e rpels elvai vTro(, tfroi irp6- 
ffcaira, 4-nl rrjs ayias Kal 6/J.oovcriov vpid- 
Sos- Anastasius in 08777. c.2I. [c. 20. 
ed. Ingolstadt, 1606. Anastasius Si 
naita was bishop of Antioch in the 
sixth century. This work, however, is res]. E. H. i. 23. 

considered by Cave to have been made 
up out of the works of Anastasius and 
other writers. B.] 

1 ^vvir6crra. T6v re /cat fwrrdpxovTa 
r}>v vibv flvai rov Qeov, eVa re 0e6j/ eV 
v e?j>ai 

sometimes used for Substance; as expressed at Sardica. 245 

continued to be used without offence, had not the Arians BOOK n. 
abused it to propagate their own heresy, taking it, in a H ^n| x 
more general signification, for nature and substance, and ORIGEN. 
teaching that the Father and the Son are two hypostases, [ 319 ] 
that is [two] diverse natures or substances, mutually differing 
from each other. For it was against them that the catholic 
doctors affirmed in the council of Sardica, that there is one 
hypostasis 1 of the Father and of the Son. The words of the l A 
fathers of Sardica, on this subject, in their Synodical Letters, 
preserved by Theodoret, are worthy to be transcribed here 11 : 
"The party of the heretics obstinately maintains, that the 
hypostases of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost are different 2 , and are separate from each other ; we, 2 
however, have received and been taught and hold this, the 
catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession, 
that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics themselves 
call substance 3 , of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 3 
Holy Ghost." Here these Fathers expressly inform us, that 
they called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost one 
hypostasis 4 , only in that sense in which the heretics took the 4 fitav fat- 
word hypostasis as equivalent to substance 5 ; intimating, as l raffL ? 
is plain, that they were not ignorant of another sense of 
the word, received among the ancient catholic doctors of the 
Church, by whom, that is, it was used to signify person or 
subsistence, and that they would willingly have embraced [320] 
it, and, in accordance with that acceptation of the word, 
would have acknowledged that there are three persons, or 
subsistences 6 , in the Godhead. From this cause, however, it 6 subsisten- 

is certain that there arose that sad division 7 , which after- ! s * . 

7 disci- 
wards disturbed the Churches of the East, and of the West dium. 

also, touching one or three hypostases in the Godhead 8 ; 8 divinis. 
whilst some, that is, chose to conform to the language of 
the fathers of the council of Sardica, and others retained 
the ancient use and meaning of the word. And this 

g Or rather in an appendix to their irvev/j.aros, Kal eTi/cu Kexpi(r/Ae i/as ^ue?s 

Letter, which was added by some of Se Ta.{yri\v 7rapejAi j(a j uej> Kal SeSiSdy- 

them, under protest from the rest of /xefla, Kal ravrrji/ xo^v r^v KaOoXiKrjv 

the bishops. See Athanasius, Epist. Kal O.TTO(TTO\IK^V TrapaSotnv KOL iriffriv 
Synod, ad Antiochenses, p. 576. ed. ., Kal 6/jio\oyiai>, /j.iav tlvai vTr6<rracrLi/ > *i]v 

Paris. [ 5. -vol. i. p. 772.] avrol ol atperiKol ovffiav Trpo<rayopev- 

h rb rSov aiptriKuiv <rv(rrri/J.a (f)i\o- ovai, TOV Harpbs Kal rov vlov Kal TOV 

veiKe"!, Siatpopovs e?i/cu ras viroirrdofLS ayiov Tn/ei^aros. E. H. ii. 8. [p. 81.] 
rov YlaTpbs Kal TOV vlov nal rov ayiov 


Use of Hypostasis for Person by Origen. 

1 air\ov- 




use the first council of Constantinople at length ratified 
^y its authority, in its Synodical Letter, found in the 
Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, v. 9. The Arians, 
however, at length determined to throw out from their 
creeds the word vTroarao-is as well as ovcria. For in the 
Confession which was drawn up at Constantinople by 
Acacius, Eudoxius, and others, who, on being condemned 
by the decree of the council of Seleucia, betook themselves 
to the emperor, towards the end they define to this effect k : 
" But as for the word substance (ova-ia), which was set down 
by the fathers in simplicity 1 , but being*unknown to the 
people caused offence, inasmuch as the Scriptures do not 
contain it, it has seemed good to us that it be taken away. 
. . . For not even ought the word hypostasis (vTroarao-^) 
to be used touching the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost; but we say that the Son is like unto the Father 2 , 
fr. c ^)> -gy ^is (j ecree those Arians completely rescinded 
their former Confessions, in which they had declared that 
the Son was begotten, though not of the substance 3 yet 
nevertheless, of the hypostasis 4 of God the Father. 

Secondly, after premising this very lengthy, yet not use- 
less, general dissertation, touching the ancient use in the 
Church of the terms over fa and VTTOO-TCKTIS, I now, at last, 
return to Origen. It is certain, that the word vTroaracns is 
throughout employed by Origen to signify either subsistence, 
or a single and individual thing subsisting per se, which in 
beings endued with understanding is the same as what we 
now call person. Nay I do not remember, that I have any 
where found the word taken by him in any other sense, when 
he is speaking of the Trinity ; whence a great man, Hugo 
Grotius, (in his Notes on John i. 2, and on the Epistle to the 
Hebrews i. 3,) affirms, that Origen was the first to transfer 
the term in this sense from the Platonists to the use of the 
Church which however I do not believe to be true. As re 
gards the passage, which is noted by Huet, nothing is more 
evident than that Origen there affirms that the Father and 

k rb 8e oVo^a rrjs ovffias, 6irzp cbrAou- 
crrepov virb rcov Trarepwi/ eWflrj, tiyvoov- 
H.SVQV Se TO?S AaoTs, o"/caj>5aA.oj/ e^epe, 
Si6n ,117786 a! ypa.<pa,\ TOVTO Trepiexovviv, 
^pe(te TrfpiaipeOiji/ai. . . . Kal yap oi8e 

o<f)fi\i un-Jo-rams Trepl irarpbs, Kal vlov, 
KOLL ayiov Tn/etfyuiTOS 6vo/j.dfeaQai. ftpoiov 
5e Xtyoptv T<y Trarpl rbv vl6v. Atha- 
nasius de Synod. Arim. et Seleuc., 
toin. i. p. 90(j. [ SO. vol. i. p. 74-7.] 

Hue? s objections further answered. 247 

the Son are two in hypostasis 1 , in the same sense in which BOOK n. 

i 1 Jl * Jl *A O * IX 

the heretics, whom he is glancing at m that place, denied it t n. 
And who were they? beyond all doubt the Noetians and 
others, who taught that God was unipersonal 2 , and acknow- 
ledged only one hypostasis, i. e. one person, in the Godhead. 

4 , 

And as to that further objection of Huet, that Origen, when 

he ^aid that the Father and the Son are one in unanimity 

and agreement, apparently rejected all other unity, it is cer 

tainly of little weight. For he who in a given passage 

mentions only a unity of agreement between the Father and 

the Son, is not straightway to be regarded as having been 

entirely ignorant of any other unity. Then again, Origeii 

in a thousand other passages has acknowledged the Father 

and the Son to be of one substance 3 , if you look to the 

thing which is signified by the expression; full often, too, 

has he in express terms confessed the consubstantiality 4 , 

according to the quotations of Pamphilus the martyr and the 

testimony of Ruffinus. The same I shall clearly shew in the 

proper place concerning Novatian, or whoever is the author 

of the treatise on the Trinity, amongst the works of Tertul- 

lian, whom Huet notes on account of a similar expression. 

Moreover, Origen, in his first tome on John, says of the 

Valentinians and other heretics of the same kind 51 : " They 

use that passage, My heart hath poured forth a good Word/ [Ps.xlv.i.] 

supposing, that the Son of God is an emanation of the Father, 

as it were in syllables ; and accordingly, if we strictly enquire 

of them, they do not allow an hypostasis to Him, neither do 

they clearly 6 declare His substance." Here Huet allows, that 

vTToo-rao-^ is indeed distinguished from over la ; he says how 

ever that it does not mean person but subsistence. But I ask, 

what difference is made by the ancients, when they are 

speaking of the Trinity, between person and subsistence? 

As Petavius m has rightly observed, they certainly took " sub 

sistence for a concrete noun, as it is called, and confounded it 

with person." Supposing then, next, that in that passage of Ori 

gen, to which Huet objects, the word vTroo-raais be, accord 

ingly, taken for subsistence/^o that the Father and the Son 

1 xpuvrai T<p, EjftperffaTO y /capSta Mffraaiv avrw, el facpi&us avruv irw-^ 

P.OV \6jov ayaQov, oifoevoi irpoQopait flcwof/iefla, ou StSoWij/, ouSe ou<nai/ ai/roi; 

variK^v, olovei iv rruAAcgScus /m.ueVrjr/ au^ifi ffoiNru . [23. vol. IV. p. 2i>.J 
TUV vibf ruu 0eoi), /cat /car a rovro m Tetav. de Trill, iv. 3. 6. 


Oucrla also used occasionally for Person. 

1 ovrriav. 

2 erfpav 



fvai Tip 

6 persona 

rpets I/TTO- 

* fere con- 

be declared to be two in subsistence; can any catholic find 
fault with this? nay, is not he a heretic rather who denies 
it? But Huet assaults him more keenly: "Why do we 
attempt/ says he, "to set up a defence for Origen, when 
he himself betrays his own cause, in his second tome on 
John, where, impugning a certain person" as teaching, that 
there subsists not any peculiar substance l of the Holy Ghost 
other 2 than the Father and the Son/ he shortly after adds, 
we however, who are persuaded, that there are three hypo 
stases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/ &c. By 
these words he shews, that he dissents from one who asserts 
that there is only one substance 3 in the Trinity, and that he 
admits [that there are] three hypostases, that is three sub 
stances. For if the word biroo-raveis here signified ISioTrjTes, 
i. e. persons, he would fail altogether to express his dissent 
from him who thought that the Trinity was of one sub 
stance 4 / But, I maintain, nothing else can be collected 
from this passage, than that the adversary against whom 
Origen is there arguing, understood by the word ovaia 
hypostasis or person, which we have already proved that 
many others, even catholics, did. For it is plain that the 
opponent, against whom Origen is there arguing, was, 
in reality, of the school of Noetus, who maintained that 
the Holy Ghost differs in no respect at all from the Father 
and the Son, but "is the same thing 5 as the Father/ 
as Origen himself states in the same passage. In reply 
to him, Origen in this place shews, that in Matt. xii. 32, 
there is, without any controversy, a distinction set forth 
between the Holy Ghost and the Son; whence he concludes, 
that the Holy Ghost, as also the Son, differs in person 6 from 
the Father; and then adds, that both he himself and other 
catholics believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 
are three vTroo-rao-eis, three subsistences 7 . Indeed the word 
vTToa-rao-is almost uniformly 8 in Origen signifies either sub 
sistence in the abstract, or a single and individual thing sub 
sisting by itself, which, as I have repeatedly said, is equivalent, 
in the case of those beings which are endowed with life and 

/, ,117786 ovaiav TIV& 
TOV ayiov irvev^aTos, 
fTfpav Trapa rbv irarcpa /cat T^V vlbv, . . . 
rj/j.e?s pffToiyf r/jftV vTroffrdiTfis Treiflo- 



Kal rb 

arepa, KOI rbv 
, /c.A.~-[t). 

Origen distinguished Substance and Hypostasis as we do. 249 

understanding, to person. But why do we detain the reader BOOK n. 
with these disputes 1 ? There is a passage extant in the Greek CI A n. IX 
Commentaries of Origen, edited by Huet himself, which most ORIGEN. 
clearly establishes our interpretation of Origen s meaning. In j ) 
the twelfth tome on John, p. 186 of Huet s edition, Origen 
mentions certain persons (some of the Noetians that is), 
who, from certain passages of Scripture, wrongly understood, [324] 
thought that it was shewn, that " the Son did not differ 
numerically 2 from the Father, but that being Both one, not 2 r<s a pt 0- 
only in substance but also in subject 3 , they were called ^ "^.7 
Father and Son, in respect of certain different ways of view- personally. 
ing them 4 , but not in respect of hypostasis 5 ." To whom he / Jj r 61 
makes this reply p : " We must say to them, first of all, that 4 eWofas. 
the Son is other than the Father, and that it is necessary 5 Kara - 
that the Son be the Son of a Father, and the Father be 
the Father of a Son." Here substance and hypostasis 6 6 ov<ria c>t 

. , viroGTaais. 

are clearly distinguished, exactly in the same way as they 
are by us at this day; and the view of Origen and other 
catholics is accurately distinguished from that of the Noe- 1 18 
tians. The catholics taught that the Father and the Son are 
indeed one in substance, that is, that they are O/JLOOVO-LOI,, (of 
one substance or consubstantial,) but two in hypostasis and 
in subject ; whilst the heretics contended, on the other hand, 
that the Father and the Son are one, not only in substance 
but also in hypostasis, and that they are merely distinguished 
according to our different notions or conceptions, and called 
at one time in one respect, Father ; and at another time and 
in another respect, Son. Nothing surely is more manifest 
than this. I have treated of the ancient ecclesiastical sig 
nification of the word vTroaraa-Ls, when used of the God 
head 7 , at greater length perhaps than was called for by the 7 in divinis. 
objection that was put forward; yet the intelligent reader 
will not, I trust, take it amiss, when he considers how 
entirely 8 , not only the mass of theologians, but also men of 8 tota via. 
the greatest learning are in error on this point q . 

. . . /Jirf Siatyepftv r$ api6/j.$ rbv P Ae/creW irpbs avrovs irp&rov ^uei/, 

vlbis TOV irarpks, ciAA 5 fv, ov JJ.OVQV ovaia, . . . erepov elvai rbv v ibv irapa. T\>V ira- 

a\\a Kal \>TTOKi^vcf TvyxdvovTas ap- repot, KOI 8ri avdyKf] T^V v ibv -rrarpb } 

(po-Tepovs, Kara rivas eirivoias Siafbdpovs, tlvai vibv, Kal T^bv irarepa viov Trarepa. 

ov Kara virocrracnv, XtyevOai Trarepa Kal [Ibid.] 
v ifo.[(oii\. x. 21. p. 199.] q [See also the notes on the Orige- 

250 Of Origan s denying that the Son is God over all; 




12. There follows another objection of Huet, taken from 
STANTIA- these words of Origen, against Celsus 1 , bookviii.: "But sup- 
T^TsoN. P ose ^ to be the case that > as ma 7 be expected in a numer- 
~[325] ous bo( ly of persons who believe and admit of difference of 
opinion, that some from their precipitancy put forth the 

1 rbv [>e - view that our Saviour is the God s who is over all 1 ; still we 
BeTf eVi do not say any such thing, who believe Him when He 
u\e(miver- says The Father, who hath sent Me, is greater than I/ " 
sorum Upon which Huet* makes these observations: "There were 
VeT Lat. some who affirm ed that Christ is God over all 2 , and that in 

2 univer- a true and orthodox sense. Now this statement certainly 
DeZ. relat es to the divine, not to the human nature of Christ. 

Origen, on the contrary, denies that our Saviour is God over 
all, which he proves from this, that He is less than the 
Father, who is God over all. He takes away, therefore, 
from the divine nature of Christ, that supreme Godhead over 
all things, and assigns it to the Father ; and in consequence 
he makes the Son inferior to the Father in a certain kind 
of greatness 3 , and that as God to God, not as man to God." 
But, in the first place, the very learned commentator is (if he 
will permit me to say it) in very grave error in supposing that 
it was in a true and orthodox sense, that they against whom 
Origen s strictures are here directed, affirmed, that the Son 
is God over all ; for Origen expressly speaks of a certain few 
among the Christians, who differed in what they alleged from 
the remaining very numerous body of believers, that is to 
say, from the Catholic Church of Christ. Moreover, if you 
[326] read what precedes and follows this passage of Origen, you 
will find that the objections which Celsus there brings against 
the Christians, are taken entirely from the inventions of the 
heretics. Now who were they, who, in a heterodox sense, and 
departing from the common consent of Christians, affirmed 
that our Saviour is the God over all Himself? I apprehend 

niana of Huet, in the Benedictine edi- 8 [In the Benedictine edition we 

tlOfl, ad loc. B.] read rbv ^UTTOV eirl -jraffi Qebv, " the 

r (7Tw Se, nvas d>s Ar*&40cf wurrct- greatest God over all," from which it 

ovruv, Kal Sexo/j-evw ftio^ftpfar, 8m r^v more plainly appears, what was the 

Trpoireremi viroriQecrQai, rbv <r&>T%>a dogma of the heretics, whom Origen 

elvai Tbv [ptyurrov, ed. Ben.] eVt iraa-i censures, and how perverse is the aro-u- 

e6v aX\ ofrri ye ^tte?s TOIOVTOV, ut ment of Huet. B.] 
Treie6^evoi ai>T$ \4yovn, O Uar^p, 6 t Origeuian. ii. p. 34. [Qusest. 2. 7. 

trf^as /j.e, fj.eifav uov eVrt. p. 387. p. 121.1 
[14. p. 752.] 

these words were used by heretics in a wrong sense. 251 

that those heretics are intended, who in the time of Origen BOOK n. 
were known by the name of Noetians, who taught that the j H ^ j 1 * 
Son is God the Father Himself, whom the catholics of that ORIGEN. 
age used to call, by way of distinction 1 , 6 eVl TTCLO-L Qeos, i Siewcpm- 
God over all 2 / At any rate Justin, in what is called his * &s \ 
Second Apology, notices the impious madness of certain sorum 

heretics of that class, known in his day by a different name, *? eus ; 

... . Ver. kat. 

in language not dissimilar, in the following passage 11 : "For 

they who assert that the Son is the Father, are convicted both 
of being ignorant of the Father, and of not knowing that 
the Father of all hath a Son, who being also the first-born 
Word of God is also God." In these words he not only 
distinguishes the Son from the Father of all, and denies, 
in opposition to the heretics, that He is God the Father 
Himself, but also confesses that the Son, equally with the 
Father, is in. very deed God, as being begotten of God 
the Father Himself. Perhaps however, in the passage under 
review, Origen is assailing the Marcionites and other mon 
strous forms of heresy 3 , who taught that our Saviour is not 3 et alia id 
the Son of that God who framed the world, but is His Lord, ^^J 10 " 
and superior to Him, and on that ground the God over all. monstra. 
Certainly it is evident that he is treating of them both in 
what precedes and follows. Secondly, what Origen asserts 
in the passage cited, that the Son, even in that He is 
God, (that is, God of God,) is less than the Father, 
(which Huet censures,) is quite catholic, and maintained [32 7 I 
even by the fathers who most keenly impugned the Arian 
heresy after the council of Nice, as I shall afterwards 
shew in the fourth book x , where I shall also most clearly 
prove that Origen in his books against Celsus, whilst he 
laid down that God the Father was in respect of causa 
tion 4 greater than the Son, still acknowledged the Father 4 /car* 
and the Son to be altogether alike and equal in respect of alriav 
nature 5 . * KaT k 

13. In the third place, Huet censures a passage in the fifth ** ffiv 
book of the treatise against Celsus, where Origen writes 
thus y : " When our Lord and Saviour was once addressed 

^ u ot yap rlv vibv Trarepa Qdvitoi Tes Trpcar 6rOKos &v rov &eov, Kal Qebs virdp- 

flvai, e Ae yX oz/T cu /xTjre TOV Tra-repa eVi- xei. p. 96. [Apol. i. 63. p. 81.J 

<TTd/j.t>oi, yityjfl on. eVrii/ vlbs r$ irarpl * See iv. 2. 6. 

ruv #AWJ/ yiviaaKovTfs os Kal \6jos y 6 awr^p ij/J-wt/ Kal i /./oy, anovaas 

252 That Christ is the Image of the Goodness of God. 

ON THE with, ( Good Master/ He referred the man who thus spoke, 
"- to His Father, saying, Why 1 callest thou Me good? There 
OF i s none good but One, that is God the Father/ Now if the 
l " well-beloved Son of the Father said this with good reason, as 
xix.16,17.] being the image of the goodness of God, would not the sun 
with much greater reason say to those who worship it, Why 
dost thou worship me? for, thou shalt worship the Lord 
119 thy God," &c. Upon these words the learned commentator 
observes thus z : " He takes away that goodness which be- 
2 convenit. longs 2 to God the Father, from Christ, not merely so far 
as He is Man, but even so far as He is the image of the 
goodness of God, that is to say so far as He is God." As if 
Christ forsooth were not, even as Man, in a peculiar way the 
image of the goodness of God ! But who can believe that 

3 stupidi Origen was so dull of understanding 3 , as not to perceive that 
ln f 3281 tnat tex ^ ^ *^ e Evangelist relates entirely to the economy 4 

4 OIKOVO- of Christ, which He took on Him when He assumed human 
/i " w/ * nature. Nay, Origen in the same passage expressly intimates, 

5 -rrapd- that he introduces Christ speaking thus as an example 5 , which 

Christ Himself (that is) whilst conversing among men, was 
willing to exhibit to men. But even if we were to allow that 
Origen is there speaking of Christ so far as He is God, yet 
surely the Son is rightly called the image, the adequate and 
perfect image, I mean, of the Father s goodness ; and yet so 
far as He is the image of the Father, He is not the Father 
Himself, that is to say, so far as He has His goodness, as 
also the other attributes of the divine nature, and even the 
divine nature itself, by derivation from the Father, as from a 

6 ex pater- fountain 6 , and so possesses Godhead in secundo signo originis 
nofonte. ^ n ^ e secon( j degree of origin, as the schoolmen say), the 
7primas. first place 7 might in that way of viewing it be attributed, not 

incorrectly, to the Father. It is, however, very certain, (if 
Origen s meaning and opinions are to be judged of out of his 
treatise against Celsus,) that what Huet gathers from these 
words is altogether alien from the meaning of Origen him- 

e, At5a<TKa\e ayadc, avaTrejuiruv TOJ/ repov kv Tots irpovKvvovffiv elirev TTI\IOS, 

\eyovra TOVTO eirl rbv eavrov Tiarepa, Ti ^te Trpo<TKwe?s ; Kvpiov yap T~bv t6v 

<pt](T\, Ti /we \eyeis ayad6v; ovSels aya- crov TrpoaKwr^ffeis; K.\. p. 238. [ii. p. 

6bs cl fj.r] efs, 6 0ebs 6 Har^p. etTrep 8e 585-86.] 

TOUT ev\6y<as, cos eiKc/Dis TTJS aya.Q6rt]Tos z Origenian. ii. p. 39. [Qusest. 2. 

TOV QeoD rVYX&wnf t ffyr)K(v 6 vlbs TTJS 15. p. 126.] 
TOV IlaTpbs, TTWS ov^i 

Catholic sense of the statement. 253 

self, that Origen, I mean, altogether took away from Christ BOOK n. 
that goodness which belongs to God the Father, and sup- CH c AI j o IX 
posed, (as Huet himself presently says in the same place,) that ORIGEN 
the Son is but "a minute portion and a kind of an imperfect 
breath a " of the Father s goodness. For seeing that in the 
passages which we have quoted above Origen clearly teaches 
that the Son, equally with the Father, is very God, uncreate, 
immortal, unchangeable, impassible, immeasurable, omnipre 
sent, and every way happy and perfect ; how was it possible 
that he should in the very same work take away from the Son, 
in that He is God, the goodness which belongs to the Father? 
But we have also already heard Adamantius 1 (book iii. b against l i. e. Ori- 
Celsus) say, that the Son of God is " the very" (or most ab- gen- 
solute) " Word, and the very Wisdom, and the very Truth." 
Why then should not the Son be called very or most abso- [329] 
lute Goodness, not a minute portion and kind of imperfect 
breath of some higher goodness 2 ? seeing that the same holds 2 bonitatis 
good 3 of all the divine attributes. Tims, in book v. c against guperioris. 
Celsus, from which this charge is taken, Origen a second 3 ratio par 
time calls the Son, " the very Word, and the very Wisdom, est * 
and the very Righteousness." And if any one wishes for a 
lucid commentary on these passages of Origen, let him turn 
to the great Athanasius, in his Oration against the Gentiles d , 
where he thus writes respecting the Son of God : " He is the 
Power and Wisdom and Word of the Father; and these 
He is, not in the way of participation, nor do these accrue to 
Him from without 4 , as in the case of those who partake of 
Him, and are made wise through Him, and in Him are en 
dued with power and reason; on the contrary, He is very 
Wisdom, very Word, and the very own Power of the Father, 
very Light, very Truth, very Righteousness, very Virtue, and 
also the Impress 5 , and the Radiance, and the Image, and 

[Heb.i. 3.] 

a [particulam et auram quandam frpevovs Si avrov, Kal Swarovs Kal Ao- 

imperfectam. cf. Hor. Sat. ii. 2. 75, yiKovs eV avry yivoptvovs- aAA avro- 

divinse particulam aurae.] ao^ia, avro\6yos, avroSwa^is I8ia rov 

b [41. p. 473-4; see above, p. 224.] Trarp6s i<rrur, avroQws, aurooA^0a, av- 

c rbv avro\6yov, Kal r^v avroffoQiav, roSiKaiocrvvri, avroaperij, Kal Kal 

Kal r^v ai/ToSi/caiocrw/r?;/. p. 258. [39. x a P a ^P^ fal a-rravyaa-iJLa, Kal eiKu>v 

P- 608.] Ka l crvvs\6vTi Qpdffcu, Kapirbs iravrt- 

* Swapis can rov irarpbs, Kal ffofyia, Aetos rov Trarpbs virdpxei, Kal /j.6vos 

Kal^6yos, ov Kara ^eroxV raOro &v, *<n\v vibs, ei/cwv airapd\\aKros rov TTU- 

ouSe e|a;0ez/ firiyivofji^vwv TOVTUV avrtp rp6s. torn. i. p. 51. [ 46. vol. i. p. 

KOTO rovs avrov ^uere ^oi Tas, Kal <ro<pi- 46.] 

254 Or iy en s use of the illustration of the Ray of the Sun : 

ON THE (in a word) the all-perfect Fruit i of the Father ; and He alone 
ig Son ^ an un aeviating 2 Image of the Father." 

14. I still press on the track of the most learned Huet, who 
having professed that he would lay aside irrelevances 3 and 
gggjQh ou t the very innermost recesses of the doctrine of 
Origen, observes e , that Origen believed that the Son 
emanated 4 from the substance of God, even as light from the 

4 manasse. sun, and, therefore, that He is of the same substance as the 

Father, forasmuch as light is of the same substance as the 

5 segre- S un; and on the other hand, that he separated 5 the Son from 

the substance and Godhead of the Father, forasmuch as light 

6 efflu- when it has gone forth from the sun by way of effluence 6 , 

may be said to be separated and removed from the sun ; 
moreover that the Son is inferior to the Father, forasmuch as 
the sun is more noble than light, and superior in dignity." 
Huet had before concluded, from Origen s use of the same 
simile f , that " the Trinity was divided by Origen into parts, 
and was distinguished by certain gradations, as it were, of 
essence and Godhead." But this (I would say it with all 
respect for this most distinguished man) is not to "search 
out the innermost recesses of Origen s doctrine," so much 
as to peep into and to suspect things of which Origen him 
self never even dreamed. I admit that Origen, even in his 
books against Celsus, illustrates the generation of the Son 
from the Father by the similitude of a ray or brightness 
thrown out from the sun or other luminous body. But what 
of that? Did not all the catholic fathers, both those who 
wrote before and those who wrote after the council of Nice, 
employ the same simile ? Did not the Nicene fathers them 
selves, and that in, their very Creed, say that God the Son 
? iiasci. was sprung 7 of God the Father, as Light of Light ? Lastly, 
what is to become of the inspired author of the Epistle to the 
120 Hebrews, who was not afraid to call the Son of God 8 "the 

8 IIeb L 8> brightness of the Father s glory?" Certainly two at least 
[331] of the inferences 9 which Huet draws from this comparison 

9 poris- anc [ fi xes on Origen, are altogether foreign from his mean 

ing. The first is, that the Son is severed and separated from 
the Father, as a portion of the divine essence from the 

e Origenian. ii. p. 44. [Qusest. 2, f Ibidem, p. 37. [Quaest. 2. 12. p. 
24. p. 132.] 123. J 

ivhat is and what is not implied by this illustration. 255 

whole, and that consequently the essence of God is cut into BOOK n. 
parts. But can any one believe that such foolish 1 blasphemy C * H ^ 1 I J 
could have entered the mind of Origen, who certainly was ORIGEN. 
no unlearned man ? And how often in his writings has * insulsam. 
Adamantius 2 expressly repudiated that blasphemy! Thus 3 i. e. Ori- 
(to omit a thousand other passages) how does he, in his gen * 
fourth book against Celsus g , (in a passage which we have 
before in this chapter adduced entire,) deride the Epicureans 
and Stoics for being unable "to clear our natural concep 
tion of God, as a Being every way incorruptible, and simple, 
and uncompounded, and indivisible?" He immediately 
adds, that the Son of God subsists in the form of God, 
that is, in the divine essence, and is accordingly Himself 
also equally with the Father Himself unchangeable. No 
thing, however, is more expressly opposed to this imagina 
tion [of Huet] than the words of Origen, which Pamphilus, 
in his Apology h , quotes from his second book on John, to 
this effect; "Therefore the only-begotten God 3 , our Saviour, 3 unigeni- 
who alone is generated 4 from the Father, is Son by nature ^l^ s 
not by adoption. He is sprung 5 of the very mind of the 4 solus a P. 
Father, as the will [is] of 6 the mind. For the divine nature, f neratus - 


that is to say [the nature] of the unbegotten Father, is not e ex> 
divisible, that we should suppose the Son was begotten either 
by division or diminution of His substance." See 19 of 
this chapter, near the end. As to the other inference of 
Huet, that Origen made the Son inferior to the Father, we 
shall hereafter shew most plainly in its proper place, that 
Origen never made the Son unequal to the Father in essence, 
but only in respect of origin, so far, that is, as the Father is [332] 
the author and principle 7 of the Son. In short, Origen and i pr inci- 
other catholic fathers, when they employed the simile of the plum> 
sun and the ray, of light and radiance, intended only to inti 
mate these points, nor did any thing else enter into their 
mind; 1. That the Father is the fountain of Godhead 8 , as 
the sun is the fountain of the radiance which is sent forth 

p. 169. [14. p. 510. see above voluntas ex mente. Non enim divisi- 

p. 226.] bilis est divina natura, id est, ingeniti 

h Unigenitus ergo Deus Salvator Patris, ut putemus vel divisione, vel 

noster, solus a Patre generatus, natura imminutione substantiae ejus Filium 

et non adoptione Filius est. Natus esse progenitum. [cap. 5. p. 34.] 
,est autem ex ipsa Patris mente, sicut 

256 Of Oriyen s statements respecting Prayer to the Father, 






3 impro- 
priam et 

from it. 2. That the Son is of the same nature and sub 
stance as the Father ; seeing that He is begotten of the very 
essence of the Father, as light proceeds from light. 3. That 
the Son no way exists divided or separated from His Father; 
just as the ray is not disjoined from the sun, nor radiance 
from light. 4. Lastly, that the Son is sprung 1 from the Fa 
ther without alteration or diminution of the divine essence. 
And certainly that illustration wonderfully assists these con 
ceptions of our mind, concerning the adorable generation of 
the Son of God ; on which account it was also employed by 
the Nicene fathers in their very Confession of Faith. 

15. There remains the fifth and last accusation which 
Huet 1 brings against Origen/out of his books against Celsus; 
to the effect, that he taught that " the Father ought to be 
adored with more humble supplication than the Son." That 
this was the genuine opinion of Origen he gathers principally 
from two passages out of these books. One is found in the 
fifth book j , where Origen speaks thus: "All supplication 
and prayer, and intercession and thanksgiving ought to be 
offered up unto the God who is over all, through Him who is 
above all angels, the High-Priest, the living Word and God. 
Moreover the Word Himself also we will supplicate, and unto 
Him intercede and give thanks, and pray also, provided we are 
able to understand in the case of prayer, the strict meaning 
of the word, and its metaphorical application." Upon which 
Huet observes, " He enjoins that prayer, in the proper ac 
ceptation of the word 2 , be offered up to God the Father, but 
to the Son in an improper and metaphorical sense 3 ; to the 
former, as unto the supreme God, the giver of all good 
things; to the latter, as unto a Mediator, to present our 
prayers unto God." You may read the other passage in the 
eighth book k ; " Therefore do we worship the one God, and 
His one Son, and Word, and Image, by supplications and en 
treaties to the utmost of our power, offering unto the God of 

1 Origenian. ii. p. 48. [Quaest. 2, 
29. p. 136.] 

j iraffav fjitv yap Seycriv Kal Trpoffev- 
^v, Kal fVTfviv, Kal i>xapio"riav ai/a- 
< eirl irafri 0e^J 5ta TOV eTrl 
ayye\ow apx^pews, fjA^vxov 
\6yov Kal 0eoC. 8e7j(r<fyie0a 5e Kal avrov 
rov \6yov, Kal fVTtv6fJ.eQa avrcp, Kal 


eav 8vv(t>iJ.e6a KaraKOveiv TTJS irspl irpoa- 
fvxys Kvpto\^ias, Kal Karaxp fio etos. 
p. 233. [4. p. 580.] 

k Sib rbi? eVa Qebv, Kal rbv sva vlbv 
avrov, Kal \6yov, Kal eiK6va, rats Kara 
rb Svvarbv r)/j.7v iKftfiais Kal d|tw(recrt 
, irpocrdyofTfS ry 

Explained ; whether Christ be considered as God or Man. 257 

all, our prayers, through His Only-begotten, to whom we BOOK n 
first offer them, beseeching Him, who is the propitiation for C Y|" j* 
our sins, that He would, as a High-Priest, present our ORIGEN 
prayers and our sacrifices and our intercessions unto the 
God over all 1 ." I wonder that these passages of Ori- T eVi 
gen should cause the slightest difficulty to that learned vnffl * 
man, in which (to confess the truth) I have myself 2 always 2 egomet. 
thought that the catholic doctrine touching the person and 
the office of our Saviour was not ill set forth. But to the sub 
ject. Christ our Lord may be regarded in a two-fold point 
of view, as He is God, and as He is God-Man 3 , or Mediator [334] 
between God and man. If you look at our Saviour under 3 ecu/fl/w 
the latter character 4 , it is certain from many places of Scrip- , fffi 
ture and the consent of all Christians, that all the worship 
which we offer to God must be presented unto Him through 
Christ the Mediator, and moreover that all the worship and 121 
honour, which we offer to Christ, altogether redounds (as 
Paul expresses it, Phil. ii. 11) "unto the glory of God the 
Father." But that Christ is the Mediator between God and 
men in respect of both natures, (whatsoever some of the 
papists k object to the contrary,) the ancient catholic fathers, 
with the Holy Scriptures, have unanimously 5 taught. And 5 uno ore. 
it is manifest that Origen, in each of the passages which have 
been quoted, had this character 6 of our JESUS especially in 
view ; for in both of them he speaks of Christ as the High- 
Priest who intercedes for us with God the Father, and 
who offered Himself as a propitiation for our sins. If, how 
ever, we regard Christ as God, without respect to His me 
diatorial office, we may again consider Him under a two 
fold aspect. For He is regarded either absolutely as God, or 
relatively as God of God, in other words as the Son of God. 
If we consider the Word under the former view, Origen in 
many places explicitly confesses, that by reason of the in 
effably transcendent Godhead which He possesses in common 
with the Father, the very same divine worship which we offer 
unto the Father is altogether due to Him : that is to say, that 

TOU povoyevovs avrov ip TJ/J.UH T$ e-jrl ira<n e. p. 386. [13. p. 
avras, dtoWes 751.] 

, . 

avrbv, iXavphv ovra irepl TUV a/uapTioov k [E. g. S. Thorn. Aquin. Summa 
yVMV, TTpoaayaye iv us dpxtepea ras eu- Theol., par. iii q. 26. art. 2.J 
, Kal ras Ovffias, Kal ras 4i>Tfveis 


258 Why prayer and praise are offered specially to the Father. 

ON THE i n our mind and thoughts 1 , by which alone we (properly 
"_ speaking) worship 2 God, we ought to ascribe unto the Son all 

1 concep- 

2 colimus. 





LITY OF those same perfections of the divine nature, which we attri 
bute to the Father. Read over again the passages which we 
have already quoted in this chapter, 8. But if, on the other 
hand, we regard the Son relatively, as He is the Son, and 
derives His origin from God the Father, then again it is cer 
tain, that all the worship and veneration which we offer to 
Him, redounds to the Father, and is ultimately referred to 
Him, as the fountain of Godhead k . Origen seems to have 
had this also in view in the latter passage cited by Huet, in 
which, after the words which have been already quoted, the 
following are immediately subjoined 1 ; "In 3 God therefore is 
our faith, through His Son, who confirms it in us : and Celsus 
cannot charge us with any insubordination 4 in regard of the 
Son of God; yea and we do indeed venerate the Father whilst 
we admire 5 His Son, [who is His] Word, and Wisdom, and 
Truth, and Righteousness, and whatsoever we have learned 
the Son of God to be ; thus also [we venerate the Father, in 
admiring] Him who is begotten of such a Father." That this 
doctrine is sound and catholic is known to all who have even 
a moderate acquaintance with the writings of the ancient 
doctors. What is to be said to the fact, that this pre-emi 
nence 6 of the Father is even at this day recognised in all the 
Liturgies of the Catholic Church? For both in doxologies 
we give glory to God the Father in "the first rank/ (eV TT/OW- 
rrj rafet,) as Justin expresses it, and unto Him do we direct 

7plerasque. most of 7 our prayers. On this point the remarks of Petavius 
(on the Trinity, iii. 7, 15) are indeed worthy to be observed, 
when, in replying to Crellius respecting the Holy Ghost, he 
says, "In vain doth Crellius frame a false charge on the 
fact, that in the Church public prayers are usually not 
addressed to the Holy Ghost ; since, in accordance with 

8 plerseque. ancient usage, they are for the most part 8 referred to the 
Father. And thus we find it decreed in the twenty-third 

u See our observations on the dox 
ologies of the primitive Church, above, 
c. 3. 6. [p. H2.]_ 

1 Trepi Tbv &ebv ovv rj TT KTTLS TJ/LLWV, Sia 
TOU ravTTjv jSe/ScuoiWos v j^v vlov av- 
TOV. Kal ov^f/jLiav fjlA&V e^ei 8e?|cu (na 
ff IV 1T6pl T\)V Vlbv TOV @oG 6 KeA(7OS KO.I 

creySojttcV ye rbv Tlarepa, 6av/J.dovTes av- 
TOV -TUV vibv, \6yov, ical aotyiav, Kal a\-f)- 
Oeiav, Kal tiiKCUOfftirriv, Kal Trdfra airep 
elvai fj./ua9-r)Ka/j.fp rbv vibv TOV QOV 
ovT<a ST) Kal rbis 7epi>7]0eWa airb TOIOV- 
TOvTIaTp6s. [Orig. ubi supr. 13. p. 751. 
On the word OTO.GLV, comp. 11. p. 750.] 

Jerome s charges; Of the Father being invisible to the Son; 259 

canon of the third council of Carthage 1 ; when standing BOOK n. 
at the altar, let prayer be always directed to the Father/ C u i 
Doubtless, because as at that time the Body of Christ, or the ORIGEN. 
Man Christ is offered up, and the memorial of His ancient [336] 
and bloody sacrifice is celebrated, it is right that all should J [ A - D 
be referred unto the Father, as Author and Principle 2 ; in2 princi _ 
order that we may imitate our great High-Priest, the Lord pium. 
Christ, who both was wont to refer all His words and actions 
to the honour of the Father, and especially in that last sacri 
fice gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice 3 unto 3 hostiam. 
God for a sweet-smelling savour/ Nor does it follow from p v 2> 
this, either that Christ is not God, or that the Holy Ghost 
[is not God] ; this only follows, that there is a supreme 
Principle of Both 4 , from whom as They are distinct in what 4 summum 
is peculiar 5 to each Person, so are They not different in 
nature and substance/" plum. 

16. Hitherto we have been defending those passages which 
the very learned writers Petavius and Huet have censured 
in the books of Origen against Celsus. But, besides these, 
Jerome in old time, giving way too much to his hatred of 
Origen, or rather of the translator of Origen, Ruffinus, and 
thence being fond of wresting every word and saying of 
his to the very worst sense, noted many other expressions 
also concerning the Son of God in other works of Ori 
gen, as being absurd and impious, which are all easily re 
futed out of the single treatise against Celsus ; we will touch 
on the most important of them. In his fifty-ninth letter, 
to Avitus" 1 , in enumerating the errors of the treatise irepl 
apx&v, Jerome declares that Origen, in the first volume of 
that work, wrote to this effect ; that " God the Father, being 
invisible by nature, is not seen even by the Son ;" and, in 
the second" volume, thus; "It remains that God be invi 
sible ; but if He is by nature invisible, He will not be visible 
even to the Saviour." Likewise, in his sixty-first letter, to 
Pammachus, chap. 3, he brings forward and condemns the [337] 
following words of Origen out of his work Trepl apy& v > 
"For as it is incongruous to say, that the Son can see the 

m Deum Patrem, per naturam invi- autem invisibilis, per naturam est, ne- 

sibilem, etiam a Filio non videri. que Salvatori visibilis erit. [ 6. p. 

[Ep. CXXIV. 2. vol. i. p. 911.] 916.] 

n Restat ut invisibilis sit Deus. Si Sicut enim incongruum est dicere, 

S 2 

260 refuted by other passages, and by the context ; 
THE Father, so is it unsuitable to suppose that the Holy Ghost 

can see the S n " And EP^ 118 ( Hseres - lxiv " C ^ and 

fa Ancorat. c. 63) lays down this as the foremost and chief 
among the errors of Origen. But let us hear Origen him- 


122 self, out of his undoubted work against Celsus, clearly un 
folding his own view respecting the knowledge, by which 
the Father and the Son mutually know each other, in these 
words i; "But our Saviour and Lord also, the Word of 
God, putting before us the greatness of the knowledge of 
- the Father, how that worthily, in a pre-eminent sense 1 , He 
is comprehended and known by Himself alone [i. e. by the 
Son alone], and in a secondary sense by those who have 
their reason enlightened by Him who is Himself the Word 
and God, says, No man knoweth the Son save the Father, 
neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he 
to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him/ For no one can 
. worthily know Him who is uncreate 2 and the first-born 3 of 
all created 4 nature, as the Father who begat Him, neither 
~ s can any one [know] the Father, as the living Word, who 
is also His Wisdom and Truth/ Nothing was ever stated 

[338] in stricter accordance with catholic doctrine. Moreover we 
have before 1 heard Origen say, that "the Father is compre 
hensible (tyiicrov) by His Word/ or Son. With respect, 
indeed, to the passages which have been adduced from his 
books irepl apx&v, I might have replied, that of all the wri 
tings of Origen, these have been the most corrupted and in 
terpolated, and that this has been shewn by many arguments 
by Ruffinus 8 . But in this case we have no need of such a 
reply, since the very words of Origen, as they are brought 
forward entire by Ruffinus*, who explains both the drift of 

quod possit Filius videre Patrem, ita 6 Uar^p, ovSe rbv Tlare pa e< rf 6 vlbs, 

inconveniens est opinari, quod Spiritus Kal $ kv 6 vlos &iroiea\fyp. owre yap 

S. possit videre Filium. [Vol. ii. p. rbv ay^-rov ical ircforjs TKWJTTJS 4>u<res 

413, for this work is not placed among TrpcarSTOKov KO.T aiav dUvai ris Swa 

the Epistles in the Benedictine edition. rat, cbs 6 ycvrftffas avrbv Uar^p, ofae 

_ B i rbv Tlarepa. us 6 eptyvxos \6yos, Kai 

l a\\ a KoloootTrip ^u" KtJptos, aoQia. O.VTOV ical aA^flem. Lib. vi. p. 

\6yos rov eou, rb peyeOos irapiffras 286. [17. p. 643.] 
TTJS yvdxrcus rov Uarpbs, 6n /car Qiav * See 9 of this chapter, [p. 232.] 

vpoiiyovfjifvwa avry p6vtf Ao^ai/erat 8 See Ruffinus Prolegomena to the 

Kal yiyvw<TKTai, Sevrepws Se rots e A- treatise Trepl apx^v. 
\auiropevois rb ^y^oin^ov inr* avrov * See Ruffinus Invectivse, amongst 

rov \6yov Kal eov, ^crlv, OuSeis e-rn- the works of Jerome, torn. ix. p. 139. 

[tyvu ed. Ben.] rbv vibv e ^ [vol. ii. p. 598.] 

Origen was maintaining that God is incorporeal. 261 

the author and the context of his discourse, are abundantly BOOK H. 
sufficient for their own vindication. The case stood thus; CH A ig. IX " 
Origen, in his first book Trepl ap%wv } had mooted a question QRIGEN. 
in opposition to those who say that God is corporeal and 
represent Him with human limbs and form 1 ; which the a habitu. 
heresy of the Valentinians and Anthropomorphites parti 
cularly asserted. Origen, in maintaining the faith of the 
Church against these heretics, had proved from reason 2 that 2 rationi- 
God is without a body of any sort 3 , and consequently is 3 us * . 
also invisible 4 . Then, the order of the question challeng- genere in- 
ing him to it, he subjoins these words u ; "These assertions 
however may be thought to possess less authority by those 
who in matters pertaining to God 5 wish to be instructed out 5 de rebus 
of the Holy Scriptures, and desire also to have it proved to 
them from those [Scriptures], how the nature of God sur 
passes 6 the nature of bodies. Consider then whether the 6 super- 
Apostle also does not assert this same thing, when he speaks ei 
of Christ, saying, Who is the image of the invisible God, the 
first-born of every creature. For the nature of God is not, 
as some suppose, visible to some 7 , and invisible to others ; r alicui. 
for the Apostle did not say the image of God [who is] in- [339] 
visible to men/ or invisible to sinners/ but pronounces most 
decidedly 8 of the nature of God itself 9 , saying, the image of 8 valdecon- 
the invisible God/ And John also in his Gospel, in saying, 

* No one hath seen God at any time, manifestly declares to natura 
all who are capable of understanding, that there is no nature 
to which God is visible ; not as though He were such as to 
be by nature indeed visible, and to escape and surpass the 
power of sight of created beings as being too frail, but be 
cause it is naturally impossible that He be seen. But if 
you ask me, what I think concerning the Only-begotten 

tt Verum ista& assertiones minus for- Dei hominibus, aut invisibilis peccatori- 

tassis auctoritatis habere videantur apud bus, sed valde constanter pronunciat de 

eos, qui ex S. Scripturis de rebus di- ipsa natura Dei dicens, imago invisibilis 

vinis institui volunt, et etiam sibi hide Dei. Sed et Joannes in evangelic di- 

approbari quserunt, quomodo natura cens, Deum nemo vidit unquam, mani- 

Dei supereminet corporum naturam. feste declarat omnibus, qui intelligere 

Vide ergo si non etiam apostolus hoc possunt, quia nulla natura est, cui vi- 

idem ait, cum de Cbristo loquitur, di- sibilis sit Deus ; non quasi qui visibiHs 

cens, Qui est imago invisibilis Dei, pri- quidem sit per naturam, et velut fragi- 

mogenitus omnis creature. Non enim, lioris creaturae evadat atque excedat 

ut quidam putant, natura Dei alicui aspectum ; sed quoniam naturaliter 

visibilis est, et aliis invisibilis ; non videri impossibile est. Quod si re- 

enim dixit apostolus, imago invisibilis quiras a me, quid etiam de ipso Uni-> 


The Father known, not seen, of the Son* 



1 conse- 

2 cognos- 


4 inter. 

6 cognosci 
et cog- 
6 scientia. 


7 de ipsa 

8 visibili- 
tatis voca- 

9 percipi. 

Himself also, let it not be at once judged by you either im 
pious or absurd, if I say, that the nature of God, which is 
naturally invisible, is riot visible even to Him ; for I will add 
a reason in due course 1 . It is one thing to see, another to 
know 2 ; to be seen and to see are properties of bodies, to 
be known and to know of intellectual nature. Whatsoever, 
therefore, is a property of bodies, this is not to be believed 
either of the Father or of the Son. But that which pertains 
to the nature of the Deity, this, it is certain, holds between 
the Father and the Son. Lastly, even He Himself in the 
Gospel said not, No one hath seen the Fath er, save the Son ; 
nor the Son, save the Father / but He said, ( No one know- 
eth the Son save the Father, neither knoweth any one the 
Father, save the Son/ From this it is manifestly intimated, 
that whatsoever [in what takes place] between 3 corporeal 
natures is expressed by the terms to be seen or to see, this 
[in what takes place] between 4 the Father and the Son is 
expressed by the terms to be known or to know 5 , through 
the power of knowledge 6 , not through the weakness of any 
visible nature. Since therefore, in speaking of an incor 
poreal and invisible nature, it cannot in strictness be said, 
that it either sees or is seen, in consequence neither is the 
Father in the Gospel said to be seen by the Son, nor the Son 
by the Father, but to be known." Who does not at once admit 
with Ruffinus, that Origen in these words says nothing about 
a comparison between the Father and the Son, but is en 
quiring about the very nature of Deity 7 , whether the term 
visible 8 seem in any way suitable to it ? For Origen does 
not deny, rather he teaches plainly enough, that the Father 
is perceived 9 by the Son, equally as the Son by the Father, 

genito sentiam, si ne ipsi quidem visi- 
bilem dicam naturam Dei, quae natu- 
raliter invisibilis est, ne tibi statim vel 
impium videatur esse, vel absurdum ; 
rationem quippe dabimus consequenter. 
Aliud est videre, aliud cognoscere ; vi- 
deri et videre corporum res est ; cog 
nosci et cognoscere intellectuals natu 
rae est. Quicquid ergo proprium cor 
porum est, hoc nee de Patre est nee de 
Filio sentiendum. Quod vero ad na- 
turain pertinet Deitatis, hoc inter Pa- 
trein et Filium constat. Denique etiam 
ipse in evangelic non dixit, quia nemo 
vidit Patrem nisi Filius, neque Filium 

nisi Pater; sed ait, Nemo novit Filium 
nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis novit nisi 
Filius. Ex quo manifeste indicatur, 
quod quicquid inter naturas corporeas 
videri et videre dicitur, hoc inter Pa 
trem et Filium cognoscere dicitur et 
cognosci, per virtutem scientiae, non 
per visibilitatis fragilitatem. Quia 
igitur de incorporea natura et invisi- 
bili nee videre proprie dicitur nee vi 
deri; idcirco neque Pater a Filio, ne 
que Filius a Patre videri in evangelic 
dicitur, sed cognosci. [1. 8. vol. i.p. 

Jerome s unfair evasion of this explanation. 263 

that is, most perfectly ; all he says is, that One is perceived BOOK u. 
by the Other, "not through the weakness of any visible 10. 
nature, but through the power of knowledge." What does ORIGEN. 
Jerome, however, say to this ? Hear and judge for yourself. 
In his Apology against Ruffinus, book ii. x , he speaks to this 
effect ; " On the first book Trepl ap^wv, in which Origen has 
with sacrilegious tongue blasphemously asserted, that the 
Son does not see the Father, you offer reasons also, as if 
in the person of the writer; and you translate the explana 
tion 1 of Didymus, in which with useless labour he attempts l a^Ato*/. 
to defend another s error, that Origen forsooth spoke well, 
but we simple mortals and dull old-fashioned folk can 
not understand either his wisdom, or yours who have trans 
lated him." But why does he not prove, that the words 
of Origen do not admit 2 of that explanation of Didymus, 2 respuere. 
(who certainly was a man of great name in the Church, and 
once the teacher of Jerome himself,) or that Ruffinus did 
not faithfully quote and translate them ? I suppose, because 
he could not. It was, we know, usual for Jerome (as might 
be expected from his great rhetorical power) either simply 
to pass over in silence such arguments as pressed him, or 
to evade their force by jest and satire. Certainly the words 
of Origen, as they are alleged by Jerome himself, suffici 
ently indicate that the reply of Ruffinus, and of Didymus 
before him, is most true. For he says, that Origen wrote, 
that " God the Father, being invisible by nature, is not seen 
by the Son;" and again, "If God is by nature invisible, He 
is not visible even to the Saviour." From this, I say, it is 
no uncertain inference, that Origen for this reason asserted [341] 
of the Father, that He could not be seen by the Son, not 
because the Son, as though of weaker vision 3 , were unable 3 aspectus. 
to see the Father, who, otherwise, of His own nature might 
have been seen by competent faculties ; but because God 
is in Himself and of His very nature invisible ; that is, in 
corporeal, and cannot become an object of sight 4 ; and that 4 neque sub 


x In primo libro Trepl apx&v ubi Ori- tur alienum errorem defendere ; quod 
genes lingua sacrilega blasphemavit, Origenes quidem bene dixerit, sed nos 
quod Filius Patrem nonvideat, tu etiam simplices homines et cicures Enniani 
causas reddis, quasi ex per sona ejus nee illius sapientiam, nee tuam, qui in- 
qui scripsit; et Didymi interpretaris terpretatus es, intelligere possumus. 
i/, in quo ille casso labore cona- torn. ii. p. 511. [ 11. vol. ii, p. 502.] 

264 The Son, as the Image of, not the same as, the Father. 

1 Invec- 

2 Hierony- 
rni adv. 

8 imagina- 

* ipsissi- 
mam ve- 
5 objectio. 


in this sense Origen declared the Father and the Son to be 
alike invisible to Each Other. Frankly to confess the truth, 
Jerome, in thus accusing Origen, has so manifestly betrayed 
a temper devoid of candour, and carried away by passion, 
that he seems to have deprived himself of all credit, in re 
spect of the rest of his charges. Any one will at once ac 
knowledge this, who will not think it too much trouble to 
compare "The Invectives 1 " (as the treatise is called) of Ruf- 
finus, with Jerome s " Apology against Ruffinus 2 ." 

17. Again, in the same letter to Avitus, Jerome attributes 
to Origen the following impious assertion also ; " that the 
Son when compared with the Father is not Truth ; but among 
us He is seen [as] imaged 3 Truth y ." Others of the ancients 
fasten on him a still more atrocious blasphemy, namely, that 
" the Son in comparison with the Father is falsehood." Who 
however, in his sound senses, can suppose that Origen was 
so mad as this ? at any rate we have already shewn that 
Origen, both in his treatise against Celsus and elsewhere, 
taught in express terms, that the Son of God is " very 
Truth 4 , (avToaXtjOeia)." But to this charge 5 an answer 
seems to gleam out from the very charge itself, as it is 
stated in Greek by an anonymous vindicator of Origen, in 
Photius, cod. 117. Here amongst the points which used 
to be censured in Origen, he places this last 2 , " That the 
Image of God, in respect of Him of whom He is an image, 
so far forth as He is an image, is not the Truth." Now if 
this proposition be duly weighed, it will be found to be sound 
and catholic. For it is most certain, that the Son, so far 
forth as He is the Image of the Father, is not the Truth, 
that is to say, is not the Father Himself, of whom He is the 
Image. For this, you will observe, appears to have been said 
by Origen, in opposition to the Noetians, who asserted that 
the Person of the Father, and of the Son, was the same. In 
his sixth book against Celsus, however, Origen expressly 

y Filium [qui sit imago invisibilis 
Patris] omparatum Patri ,non esse 
veritatem ; apud nos autem [qui Dei 
omnipotentis non possumus recipere 
veritatem] imaginariam veritatem vi- 
deri, [ut majestas ac magnitudo majoris 
quodammodo circumscripta sentiatur 
in Filio. ibid.] 

n 77 fiKv TGV ov, ws Trpbs e/ce?- 
vov, ov fffTiv eiKwv, Kad* & ei/cwi/, OVK 
fa-riv ahydeia. [Phot. cod. 117. See 
Ruffinus translation in the work irepl 
apxajy, I. 2. 6. p. 56, which does not 
at all agree with the Greek as here 
quoted. B.] 

Christ, by His Humiliation, a Light amid darkness. 265 

teaches that the Son of God is the true, living, and most BOOK n. 
perfect Image of His Father, answering to the Father Him- le-lig! 
self throughout 1 , even in His greatness 2 ; we shall afterwards ORIGEN. 
adduce the passage entire a . P er om - 

18. Lastly, Jerome, in his letter to Avitus, attributes to 2et i ain 
Origen the following blasphemy also b ; "that God the Father magnitu- 
is Light incomprehensible; that Christ in comparison with 

the Father is a very small luminary *." And yet we have 3 perpar- 
seen above, that Origen in more than one passage in his dorerru " 
treatise against Celsus, expressly taught that the Father 
and the Son are alike incomprehensible. This charge, how 
ever, appears to be derived from those passages, in which 
Origen states, that, " In the Father is no darkness at all ; 
but the Son shineth 4 in darkness c ." Origen himself, how- 4 lucere. 
ever, has clearly explained his own meaning and drift in 
these passages, in the following words in his fourth volume 
on John, thus d ; "But let no man suppose that, in saying 
this, we are acting with impiety 5 towards the Christ of God ; 5 aa-epow- 
for in the sense in which the Father alone hath immortality, rc 
seeing that our Lord, out of loving-kindness towards men, 
took upon Him the death [which He endured] on our behalf, 
in this sense is it true of the Father alone, that in Him is no [343] 
darkness at all, forasmuch as Christ, out of His beneficence 
towards mankind, took our darknesses upon Himself." 

19. Thus have we at last clearly shewn that the doctrine 
of Origen s books against Celsus, in the article touching 
the Son of God, is orthodox and catholic ; and, further, to 
the impious sayings which Jerome and others have attri 
buted to this distinguished teacher, we have opposed asser 
tions plainly contrary, taken out of the same work, of 
which the genuineness is undoubted. Further, whosoever 
wishes to acquaint himself with the catholic testimonies 
which are found in the rest of Origen s writings, should con- 

a [(Bookiv. 2. 6.) Cf. Huet s Ori- d /j.r)Sels 8 ^uSs viro\a/j.ftavru ravra 

geniana, II. 2. 16. p. 126, and the notes Xsytiv acre/Sovvras ets rbv Xpurrbv rov 

on it in the Benedictine edition B.] eoG. cjj yap \6y<? 6 Uar^p p6vos *x l 

b Deum Patrem esse lumen incom- aQavao-iav, rov Kvpiov rjflcav Sia $i\av- 

prehensibile ; Christum collatione Pa- QpcaTriav rbv v-rrep rj/j-Su/ avei\"r)- 

tris splendorem esse perparvum. (p6ros, rovru> 6 Uar^p ex ei l^ofos rb, 

[Ibid.] (TKoria ev avr< OVK eariv ouSejU/a, rov 

c In Patre nullas esse tenebras ; Fi- Xpio-rov Sia r^]\> Trpbs avBpcairovs tvep- 

lium vero in tenebris lucere. [This is yeo-iav e<J> avrbv ras Tj^Sav ffKorias ava- 

perhaps taken from the work irepl ap- <5e5e7jueVou. vol. iv. in Joan. edit. 

Xo>f, I. 2. 8. p. 56. B.] Huet, p. 73. [torn. ii. 21. p. 79.] 

266 Evidences of Origen s orthodoxy from passages quoted 





1 substan- 

2 assump 

3 decidere 

4 ava/Jidp- 

suit the Apology of Pamphilus the martyr in defence of Ori- 
gen, which is extant amongst the works of Jerome e ; that 
this was the genuine work of Pamphilus we shall by and 
by clearly prove, in opposition to Jterome. It may suffice for 
us to recite in this place a few choicer passages out of that 
Apology. From his first book ire pi dp%o)v f Pamphilus quotes 
these words of Origen g ; " There is, therefore, no nature, 
which does not admit of evil, except the nature of God, which 
is the fountain of all. And Christ is Wisdom, and wisdom, it 
is plain, cannot admit of folly ; and He is Righteousness, but 
righteousness certainly will never admit of unrighteousness ; 
He is also the Word or Reason, which, it is plain, cannot be 
made irrational ; but He is also Light, and it is certain that 
light is not comprehended by darkness. In like manner 
also the nature of the Holy Ghost which is holy, admits not 
of pollution ; seeing that It is naturally or essentially l holy. 
If any other nature, however, be holy, it hath this its sancti- 
fication, by receiving 2 , or being inspired by, the Holy Ghost, 
possessing it, not of its own nature, but as an accident ; and 
on this account being an accident it may cease to be attached 
to it 3 ." Here, Origen expressly teaches that sinlessness 4 , or 
the being incapable of admitting evil, belongs only to the 
nature of God ; and, at the same time, he no less expressly 
declares, that neither the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, can 
admit of evil; certainly 5 therefore Origen thought, that both 
the Son and the Holy Ghost subsist in the divine nature ; 
which I would have those persons to observe, who think that 
Origen reckoned the Holy Ghost at any rate amongst created 
beings. But afterwards also in the same passage he clearly 

e Torn. ix. edit. Marian. Victor. 
Paris. 1623. [And in the Benedictine 
edition of the works of Origen, vol. iv. 

f [c. 8, 3. p, 77.] 

g Nulla ergo natura est, quae non 
recipiat malum, excepta Dei natura, 
quse fons omnium est. Et Christus 
sapientia est ; et sapientia utique stul- 
titiam recipere non potest. Et jus- 
titia est; justitia autem nunquam pro- 
fecto injustitiam capiet. Et Verbum 
est vel ratio, quae utique irrationabilis 
effici non potest. Sed et lux est; et 
lucem certum est quod tenebrae non 
comprehendant. Similiter autem et 
natura Spiritus Sancti, quae sancta est, 
non recipit pollutionem ; naturaliter 

enim vel substantialiter sancta est. Si 
qua autem alia natura sancta est, ex 
assumptione hoc, vel inspiratione Spi 
ritus Sancti habet ut sanctificetur, non 
ex sua natura hoc possidens, sed acci- 
dens; propter quod et decidere potest 
quod accidit p. 120. [c. 4-. p. 27.] 
The Benedictine edition reads, fons 
bonorum omnium est et Christi. Sapi 
entia enim est, &c., "is the fountain 
of all good things and of Christ. For 
He is Wisdom," &c. B. All the edi 
tions and MSS. of Pamphilus Apology 
have the text as Bp. Bull gives it r 
except that some read Christi for 
Christus: the correction of the Bene 
dictine editor is made from the Lat. 
Vers. of the book de Principiis itself.] 

in the Apology of Pamphilus. 267 

recognises the unchangeableness 1 and eternity of the whole BOOK n. 
most holy Trinity in the following words h ; "If the Holy ^V* 
Ghost knows the Father through the Son s revealing Him, QRIGEN. 
it follows that He has passed from a state of ignorance to . 
one of knowledge ; but this, as is plain, is alike impious and 
absurd, to confess the Holy Ghost, and yet to attribute igno 
rance to Him. For it is not the case, that having been some 
thing else before He was the Holy Ghost, He came to be the 
Holy Ghost by way of advancement 2 , so as that any one may 2 per pro- 
presume to say that at that time indeed, whilst as yet He fe 
was not the Holy Ghost, He knew not the Father, but that 
after He received [that] knowledge He also became the Holy 
Ghost. For had this been so, never certainly would the Holy 
Ghost Himself also be accounted to be in the unity of the 
Trinity, that is, of God the Father who is unchangeable, and 
of His Son, except because He Himself also ever was the [345] 
Holy Ghost." Of the Son of God, moreover, Origen writes 
thus, in his first book on the Epistle to the Romans 1 , as 
quoted by Pamphilus; "Some one perhaps may make a ques 
tion whether the Son is Love, chiefly for this reason, that 
John has referred this word to God the Father, saying, for 1 John 
God is Love/ But on the other hand we will adduce also lv 
out of that same epistle of his that which he says, Beloved, 1 John 
let us love one another, for Love is of God/ He therefore, n 
who said, for God is Love/ does himself again teach that 
Love is of God ; which Love I believe to be no other than His 
only-begotten Son, who, as He is God of God begotten, so is 

h Si revelante Filio cognoscit Patrem charitas est, praecipue propter hoc quod 

Spiritus Sanctus, ergo ex ignorantia ad Joannes ad Deum Patrem retulit hanc 

scientiam venit; quod utique et im- vocem, dicens, quia Dens charitas est. 

pium pariter et stultum est, Spiritum Sed rursum ex ipsa ejus Epistola pro- 

S. confiteri,etignorantiameiadscribere. feremus et illud quod ait, Charissimi, 

Non enim cum aliudaliquid esset ante- diligamus invicem, quoniam charitas ex 

quam Spiritus Sanctus, per profectum Deo est. Qui ergo dixit, quia Deus 

venit in hoc, ut esset Spiritus Sanctus, charitas est, ipse iterum charitatem 

lit quis audeat dicere, quia tune quidem, docet esse ex Deo ; quam charitatem 

cum nondum esset Spiritus Sanctus, credo non esse alium nisi unigeniturn 

ignorabat Patrem, postea vero quam Filium ejus, sicut Deum ex Deo, ita 

recepit scientiam, etiam Spiritus Sane- charitatem ex charitate progenitum 

tus effectus est. Quod si esset, nun- p. 122, [c. 5. p. 33. These words do 

quam utique in unitate Trinitatis, id not occur any where in the Commen- 

est, Dei Patris inconvertibilis, et Filii taries on the Epistle to the Romans, as 

ejus, etiam ipse Spiritus S. haberetur, they have come down to us in the 

nisi quia et ipse semper erat Spiritus translation of Ruffinus. See the note 

Sanctus. [De Princip. I. 3, 4. p. 62.] en I. 5. p. 466, (of the Bened. edition 

1 Quserat fortassis aliquis, si Filius of the commentary on Romans). B.] 

268 Passages of Origen quoted by Pamphilus ; 

r oN THE He Love of Love. . . . The only-begotten k Son our Saviour, 
STANT"!" w ^ alone was born 1 of the Father, is alone Son by nature 
LITY OF and not by adoption." Pamphilus presently afterwards cite s 
the following from Origen s Commentary on the Epistle to 

1 natus. the Hebrews 1 : "We ought, however, to know that Holy Scrip- 
2 quemdam ture, framing a mode [of expression] for itself 2 , by means of 
sibi fa certain ineffable and secret and recondite things endeavours 
ciens. to intimate [truths] to men, and to suggest to them subtle 
understanding. For instance, in introducing the word va 
pour, it is on this account that it has taken it [into use] 
from corporeal things, that we may be able, in some measure 
at least, to conceive how Christ, who is Wisdom, after the 
likeness of the vapour which proceeds from any corporeal 
substance, does thus also Himself arise as a kind of vapour 
3 de. out of 3 the power of God Himself. So Wisdom also, proceed 
ing from Him, is generated of the very substance of God; 
thus, nevertheless, is She also said, after the similitude of 
[346] a corporeal effluence 4 , to be a certain pure and undefiled 
4 corporalis effluence of the glory of the Almighty 5 / both which simili- 
sTsee 10638 tu ^ es do most manifestly shew that there is a communion of 
Wisd. vii. substance between the Father and the Son. For an effluence 
seems to be con substantial, that is, of one substance with 
that body, from which it is an effluence or vapour." Lastly, 
the most blessed martyr adduces the following passage also 
of Origen m : " For care should be taken, that one run not 
into the absurd fables of those who imagine to themselves 
6 prola- a kind of emanations 6 , so as to cut the divine nature into 


quasdam. k Unigenitus Filius Salvator noster, porea procedit, sic etiam ipse ut qui- 

qui solus ex Patre natus est, solus dam vapor exoritur de virtute ipsius 

-natura et non adoptione Filius est. Dei ; sic et sapientia, ex eo procedens, 

[These words, according to Pam- ex ipsa substantia Dei generatur. Sic 

philus, are taken from book v. on nihilominus et secundum similitudi- 

John. B. Of this fragments only have nem corporalis aporrhceae esse dicitur 

come down to us : the words are quoted aporrhcea gloriae omnipotentis pura 

by Bp. Bull as part of the extract from quaedam et sincera. Q,uae utraeque 

the commentary on Romans.] similitudines manifestissime ostendunt, 

1 Oportet autem scire nos, quia per communionem substantise esse Filio 

ineffabilia qusedam et secreta ac re- cum Patre. Aporrhcea enim 6fj.oov<rios 

condita quemdam modum sibi faciens videtur, id est, unius substantias cum 

Scriptura sancta conatur hominibus in- illo corpore, ex quo est vel aporrhrea 

dicare et intellectum suggerere sub- vel vapor. [Ibid.] 
tilem. Vaporis enim nomen inducens, m Observandum namque est, ne quis 

hoc ideo de rebus corporalibus assump- incurratinillas absurdas fabulaseorum, 

sit, ut vel ex parte aliqua intelligere qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis de- 

possimus, quomodo Christus, qui est pingunt ; ut divinam naturam in partes 

sapientia, secundum similitudinem ejus vocent, (puto legendum secent, Bull,) 

vaporis, qui de substantia aliqua cor- et Deum Patrem, quantum in se est, 

alleged to have been forged by Ruffinus ; 269 

parts, and, so far as lies in them, to divide God the Father; BOOK n. 
whereas to entertain such an idea, even in a slight degree, C ^\J %Q 
respecting a nature which is incorporeal, is [a mark] not ORIGEN 
only of extreme impiety, but also of the last degree of folly; 
nor, is it at all congruous even as a matter of conception 1 , * vel ad in- 
that a substantial division of an incorporeal nature should be ^ ar jfcon- 
imaginable. Rather, therefore, as will proceeds from mind, sequens. 
and yet neither cuts off any portion of the mind, nor is sepa 
rated or divided from it, in some such way is it to be sup 
posed that the Father begot the Son, that is to say, as His 
own image ; so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature, so 
has He begotten an Image which is also invisible. For the 
Son is the Word, and therefore nothing [of a nature] sub 
ject to sense is to be conceived of in Him. He is Wisdom, 
and in Wisdom nothing corporeal is to be surmised. He is, 
moreover, the true Light, which lighteueth every man that John i. 9. 
cometh into this world/ but He has nothing in common 
with the light of this sun." 

20. Now who can fail to see that by these passages of 
Origen, which Pamphilus has adduced, the catholic faith 
respecting the Son of God, and further respecting the con- 
substantial Trinity, is most plainly established? Some, 
however, attempt to invalidate the authority of these tes 
timonies under this pretence, that the alleged passages were [347] 
nowhere to be found entire in the Greek Apology, be it 125 
of Pamphilus or Eusebius ; but were invented and added 
by Ruffinus in his Latin translation. The whole ground 2 2 prora et 
of this opinion is the fact, that Jerome objects against pl 
Ruffinus that the Greek Apology of Eusebius (for he would 
not have it to be the work of Pamphilus) did in fact defend 
the Arian creed, and shewed that Origen was of that same 

-dividant ; cum hoc de incorporea na- ipse est invisibiiis per naturam, ita im- 

tura vel leviter suspicari non solum aginem quoqiie invisibilem genuerit. 

extremae impietatis sit, verum etiam Verbum enim est Filius, et ideo nihil 

liltimae insipientise ; nee omnino vel in eo sensibile intelligendum est. Sa- 

ad intelligentiam consequens, ut incor- pientia est, et in sapientia nihil cor- 

poreae naturae substantialis divisio pos- poreum suspicandum est. Lumen est 

sit intelligi. Magis ergo sicut volun- verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem 

tas procedit e mente, et neque partem venientem in hunc mundum; sed nihil 

aliquam mentis secat, neque ab ea habet commune ad solis hujus lumen, 

separatur aut dividitur, tali quadam [Pamph. Apol. p. 34, from the trea- 

specie putandus est Pater Filium genu- tise Trepl apx>v> ! 2 6. p. 55.] 
isse, imaginem scil. suam ; ut sicut 

270 Jerome s assertion that the Apology of Pamphilus 





2 Apolo- 



v<av \eyei. 

belief. Eor thus he writes in his Apology against Ruffinus, 
ii. 4 n ; "The learned Eusebius, throughout six volumes, is 
engaged in nothing else than in shewing that Origen was 
of his own faith, that is, of the Arian faithlessness." From 
this Sandius concludes that the Apology which was pub 
lished by Ruffinus in Latin, under the name of that of Pam 
philus, " either was not [the production] of Eusebius," (or 
Pamphilus,) "or was so translated by Ruffinus into Latin, 
that not a single line was left as it originally stood ] ; or 
lastly, if any portion was left by Ruffinus as it originally 
stood, it must afterwards have been cut out even from his 
version." It may however be proved by the strongest argu 
ments, that on this point Jerome is not to be trusted; for, 
in the first place, Photius, cod. 118, testifies that he had him 
self read in the Greek the six books of Pamphilus the Mar 
tyr and Eusebius in defence of Origen ; in which that severe 
critic does not mark any traces of Arian heresy, although 
at other times in the writings of others he is constantly ac 
customed to animadvert on all the slightest points which 
bear even the appearance of Arianism. Again, this same Pho 
tius, cod. 117 P , in mentioning a certain ancient anonymous 
author, who likewise wrote a Defence 2 of Origen, says, that 
that author in his Apology contended for Origen and his opi 
nions on the authority both of other more ancient writers, and 
especially of Pamphilus the Martyr and Eusebius of Csesarea. 
Photius words are, " But more than on all the others does he 
lean 3 on Pamphilus the Martyr and on Eusebius." So that 
it appears to me to be beyond doubt, that this anonymous 
writer pursued the very same method of defending Origen 
as Pamphilus and Eusebius. But was the Apologist an 
Arian? Any thing rather; for Photius himself, who in an 
other place attributes to him most of the errors of Origen, 
expressly says, that " concerning the Holy Trinity he main 
tains none of the erroneous doctrines 4 ." How then does the 

n Vir doctissimus Eusebius, per sex rvpas virep tipiyevovs re Kal rwv avrov 

volumina nihil aliud agit, nisi ut Ori- SoyiMaruv . . . irpoKo/j.i< 

genem suse ostendat fidei, id est, Ari- Se r&v aXXw airdvrwv 

anae perfidi;e. [ 16. vol. II. p. 507.] pdprvpi evepelSfrai, Kal 

De Script. Eccles., p. 47- irepl [_fj.evroi~\ TVJS ayias rpidSos ov8ei/ru>v 

. . . . eV r6p.ois e. avfirlypafyov Se ri)v rov Clpiyevovs, /uirjStv avr bv Kara 86av 
^ ervyxave rov (TvvrtraxoTos eV0aA0cu irepl rrjs rpidSos. Phot. Bibl. 
6 Se rov o~vyypd/,aros irar^p p.dp- cod. 117. 

was designed to shew that Origen was an Arian; refuted. 271 

[anonymous] author defend Origen ? "And he also declares/ BOOK n. 
says Photius, "respecting Origen, that he entertained no er- CH A 2() 1X 
roneous opinion 1 concerning the Holy Trinity." Photius ORIGEN 
afterwards states, that this writer had proved that the fif- 
teen points 2 which were objected to Origen, (of which the 
first three, the thirteenth, and the last, related to the article 2 capita. 
of the Trinity q ,) "were [mere] calumnies 3 , deriving his proofs 3 dia0o\as. 
out of the writings of (Origen) himself." The very same 
principle and method is observed in the Apology, which was 
published by Ruffinus under the name of Pamphilus. From 
these facts the following, at least, certainly results ; that an 
ancient Greek writer, who, even in the opinion of Photius, 
was catholic on the article of the holy Trinity, adduced out 
of the actual 4 writings of Origen, as they were then extant in 4 ipsis. 
Greek, testimonies which shewed that Origen also 6 was catho- 5 pariter. 
lie on that same article [of faith] , and that that writer did this 
after the example of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius, and 
following in their footsteps. Lastly, we have evidently proved 
elsewhere, that Eusebius himself never embraced the heresy, 
which was afterwards called Arian; he could not therefore 
have defended the Arian impiety in Origen, either alone, or 
in conjunction with Pamphilus, for the Apology was their 
joint work, as we shall afterwards 1 " shew. But Pamphilus and [349] 
Eusebius in that Apology, adduced, I conceive 6 , some testi-^ videntur. 
monies from Origen, in which were intermixed little words 7 7 vocula?. 
and phrases which in the time of Jerome were offensive to 
catholic ears, as having been employed by the Arians at that 
time to propagate their heresy: and these passages, I imagine, 
Ruffiims for that very reason cut out from his version, being 
content to translate such passages of Origen quoted by Pam 
philus, as taught the catholic doctrine in terms unequivocally 
catholic. And Ruffinus himself seems to intimate this, when 
in the conclusion 8 [attached] to his translation, and addressed 8 epiiogo. 
to Macarius, he declares, that 8 he had "translated into the 
Latin tongue the Apology of the holy martyr Pamphilus, ac 
cording to his ability, or AS THE CASE REQUIRED." For the 

9 [eo Ti Se, a \*yfi fj.a.rr}v avrov Karrj- Apologeticum sancti martyris Pam- 

yopj)6rjvai,~\ Sm/3oAas e7mt, e /c rcav avrov phili, ..... prout potuimus, vel RES 
Troiovfj-evov TOVS POPOSCIT, Latino sermone digessimus. 

- , 

e\e-y X ovs. [Ibid.] _[p. 48 ; see below, p. 274.1 

See ch. 13. 3, of this book. 


The honesty of Ruffinus translation. 


1 studio- 

2 vafrae. 

3 provocat. 

4 qualiter 
in singulis. 

rest I am persuaded,, that Ruffinus inserted no testimony of 
Origen in his version, which was not contained in so many 
words in the Apology of Pamphilus and Eusebius ; and that, 
whatever he may have omitted, he added nothing of his own. 
For near the beginning of his preface to the Apology of 
Pamphilus, Ruffinus himself solemnly avows to Macarius, 
that he had, in reply to Macarius enquiries, set forth in 
that work*, "not his own opinion" concerning Origen, "but 
that of the holy martyr Pamphilus ;" and had defended Ori 
gen in the words of another/ and not in his own ; and 
that Ruffinus was a man who endeavoured after 1 sincere 
piety, there are many circumstances to shew, however much 
the subtle 2 arts of Jerome may have made him an object of 
dislike to the Romans. Afterwards in the same passage he 
appeals against 3 his adversaries to the tremendous judgments 
of God on this very point, in these words ; " But since we 
shall have to appear before the judgment-seat of God, let 
none refuse to know that which is true, lest peradventure 
they should offend through ignorance; rather, considering 
that to wound the consciences of weak brethren by false ac 
cusations is to sin against Christ, let them, on this account, 
not lend their ear to accusers, nor learn what the faith of 
one is from the report of another, especially when there is 
full opportunity before them to ascertain it, and when there 
is the confession of his own mouth to shew, what or how each 
man believes. Let the tenor of this short treatise declare 
what are indeed the sentiments 4 of Origen on each particular 
point u ." It is true that in translating most of the works of 
Origen, Ruffinus added much of his own ; but so often as he 
has used this liberty he has himself x expressly informed his 

* [Quamvis non meam de eo] sen- 
tentiam, sed sancti martyris Pamphili 
[sciscitatus sis etlibrum ejus . . . trans- 
ferri tibi poposceris in Latinnm : tamen 
non dubito futures quosdarn, qui et in 
eo Isesos se putent, si nos aliquid pro 
eo vel] alieno sermone [dicamus.] 
p. 19.] 

u Sed quoniam ad judicium Dei ven- 
turi sumus, non refugiant scire quod 
verura est, ne forte ignorantes delin- 
quant ; sed considerantes quia falsis 
criminationibus percutere fratrum in- 
firmorum conscientias, in Christum 
peccare est, ideo non accommodent 

criminatoribus aurem suam, nee ab 
alio discant alterius fidem, maxime 
cum coram experiri sit copia, et oris 
sui confessio, quid vel qualiter unus- 
quisque credit, ostendat. Qualiter ergo 
sentiat Origenes in singulis, tenor 
libelli hujus edoceat [In the Bene 
dictine edition the reading is, Qualiter 
ergo Origenes de singulis capitulis 
sanctarum Scripturarum senserit, Sec., 
i. e. " What indeed were the senti 
ments of Origen on the several points 
of the Holy Scriptures," &c.] 

x See Ruffinus preface to the trea 
tise irepl a.px<*>v> and his Peroration to 

Jerome s allegations against the Apology itself. 273 

reader, as became an honest man and one who loves the BOOK u. 
truth. Nay, what is to be said to the fact, that 1 Jerome C H 2 A P 2 T 
himself, who in any other case would on no account have ORIGEN. 
forgiven Ruffinus so clear an act of fraud, has not marked 1 Quid ? 
even one single passage of Origen quoted in the Apology, be quod &c * 
it of Pamphilus or Eusebius, as having been rendered by 
Ruffinus into Latin in any other sense than that in which 
it occurred, whether in that Apology or in Origen himself. 

21. Who then would not be surprised that Jerome should 
bring these objections against Ruffinus respecting this very 
version of his ? "There are," he says?, "to be found in it many 
scandals 2 and most open blasphemies. Eusebius, or rather * scandala. 
Pamphilus, (as you will have it,) in that volume declares that 
the Son is the servant of the Father 3 ; that the Holy Ghost 3 Patris 
is not of the same substance with the Father and the Son ; ministrum - 
that the souls of men fell* from heaven," &c. Now although 4 i apsas 
Pamphilus is indeed introduced in the Apology translated esse - 
by Ruffinus, as defending Origen for having believed the 
pre-existence of souls, yet still that blasphemy about the 
Holy Ghost is no where found in that work. But you will 
say, Ruffinus expunged it from his books 5 on being remind- 5 codicibus. 
ed of it by Jerome. How then does it come to pass, that [351] 
there is not now extant a single copy of the work in which 
that blasphemy is to be found ? For copies of Ruffinus trans 
lation had been very widely dispersed before Jerome brought 
forward that objection. Surely it is not likely, that Ruf 
finus, whom the arts of Jerome had brought into contempt 
at Rome, could either have suppressed or corrected 6 all those e emen _ 
earlier copies ? Then again, Ruffinus, in his Conclusion to dare - 
PamphiW Apology, as he himself first published it, thus 
addresses Macarius, (as we are also informed by Jerome 2 ;) 
" In respect to these things, which in the foregoing treatise 
we have set forth according to our ability, or as the case 
required, in the Latin tongue, following the Apology of the 

the Comment, of Origen on the Epistle num Iapsas esse de ccelo, &c. Apol 

to the Romans. advers. Ruffin. II. 4. [ 15. vol. ii. 

In illo scandaia reperiuntur et p. 506.] 

apertissimae blasphemiae. Dicit Eu- z In his qua; in superior! libro, se- 

sebius, imo, ut tu vis, Pamphilus in cundum Apologeticum sancti martyris 

isto volumine, Filium Patris minis- Pamphili, quern pro Origene Grseco 

trum; Spiritum S. non de eadem Pa- sermone edidit, prout potuimus vel res 

tris Fihique substantia ; animas homi- poposcit, Latino sermone digessimus, 


274 That he denied the conmbstantiality of the Holy Ghost ; 



2 ex tra- 

holy martyr Pamphilus, which he published in Greek in vin- 
dication of Origen, there is this of which I wish you, my 
dear Macarius, to be reminded, that you may know that this 
which we have set forth above out of his works, is that rule 
of faith which ought to be embraced, and held fast. For it 
is evidently proved that a catholic sense pervades them all." 
Now it is manifestly impossible that Ruffinus, who without 
any doubt was catholic in the article of the Holy Trinity, 
should have deliberately asserted, that it was clearly proved that 
there was a catholic sense contained in so open a blasphemy, 
and this in that very treatise addressed to Macarius, in 
which he religiously 3 avouches his belief, " that the Holy 
Trinity is coeternal, and of one nature, and of one power and 
substance ;" and denounces an anathema on the man who 
should teach the contrary. Or was Ruffinus so dull as not of 
himself to detect, without a prompter, so gross a blasphemy 
in his own translation? Certainly not; what then must we 
say ? I trust the candid reader will here permit me to throw 
out a conjecture. Pamphilus towards the end of his Apo- 
logy, as translated by Ruffinus 1 , when defending, or, at any 
ra ^ e? excus ^ n S* the error of Origen respecting the pre-exist- 
ence of souls, and disputing against such as maintained the 
propagation of souls, describes two classes of these latter; 
the first, that of those, who, whilst they held that the souls 
o f men were derived by propagation 2 , nevertheless maintained 
that the first soul was of the substance of God ; the other, 
that of those, who asserted, that that first soul was made by 
God out of nothing. Against the former Pamphilus reasons 
thus b ; "Now as respects those, who hold that souls come 
from propagation and that they are sown together with the 
seed of the body, if indeed, (as certain of themselves are 
wont to affirm,) they maintain that soul is nothing else than 
the in-breathing of the Spirit of God, that, namely, which 
at the beginning of the creation of the world God is said 

illud est quod te, desideriorum vir 
Macari, admonitum ease volo, ut scias 
lianc quidem fidei regulam, quam de 
libris ejus supra exposuimus, esse, quae 
et amplectenda sit, et tenenda. In 
omnibus enim his catholicum inesse 
sensum evidenter probatur. [Ibid., p. 
48. ] 

a See Ruffinus s preface to Maca- 
rius. [Pamph. Apol., p. 17.] 

b Jam vero illi, qui ex traduce ani- 
mas venire affirmant, et simul cum 
corporal! eas semine seminari, siqui- 
dein, ut quidam ipsorum affirmare so- 
lent, non aliud dicunt animum esse 
quam insufflationerrr Spiritus Dei, illarn 

to be understood of the Breath of Life breathed into Man. 275 

to have breathed into Adam, asserting that this is of the BOOK n. 
very substance of God ; how shall not these too be believed CH A 2i 1X 
some how to be making this assertion in opposition to the ~CRw^ 
rule of Scripture and the analogy of the faith 1 , [namely,] rationem 
that it is the substance of God which sins ?" These words, I pietatis * 
have little doubt, were the foundation of Jerome s calumni 
ous charge 2 against Pamphilus. For, along with many of the 2 calum- 
ancients, Jerome held that the breath of life, which God is niam 
said to have breathed into the first man, was the Holy Spirit 
Himself 3 infused into that same man, together with his soul 4 . 3 ip 8 "- 
Thus in his Commentary on chap. iv. of the Epistle to the * anima 
Ephesians, on the words, " Grieve not the Holy Spirit where- ch. iv. so. 
by ye have been sealed in the day of redemption," he has this 
note c ; "For we were sealed with the Holy Spirit of God, 
that both our spirit and soul may have the impress of God s 
seal 5 , and that we may again receive that image and likeness, 5 signacu- 
after which, in the beginning, we were created. This seal um 
of the Holy Spirit, according to the language of our Savi 
our, is sealed by the impress of God." Here he makes that 
image and likeness of God, after which man was formed at [353] 
his very creation, to be the seal of the Holy Spirit ; and this 
he appears to have done simply from believing that the 
breath of life, which God is said to have breathed into the 
first man when He formed him, was the Holy Spirit. This is 
more clearly expressed by Tertullian in his Treatise on Bap 
tism, chap, v., where he speaks thus of the regeneration of 
man which is wrought by 6 baptism d ; "Thus man is restored 6 per. 
to God, after His likeness, who in time past had been made 
after God s image, &c. For he receives again that Spirit of 
God, which at that time he had received from His in-breath 
ing 7 , but afterwards had lost by sin." Pamphilus, then, 7 adflatu. 
or the author of the Apology, (understanding, as it appears, 

soil, quam initio facturae mundi Deus recipiamus imaginem et similitudinem, 

dicitur insufflasse in Adam, de ipsa ad quam in exordio conditi sumus. 

Dei esse earn substantia profitentes ; Hoc signaculum Sancti Spiritus, juxta 

quomodo non et isti videbuntur quo- eloquium Salvatoris, Deo imprimente 

dammodo haec praeter Scripturae regu- signatur. [Vol. vii. p. 632.] 
lam et rationem pietatis asserere, quod d Ita restituitur homo Deo ad simi- 

substantia Dei est quae peccat ? litudinem ejus, qui retro ad imaginem 

p. 127. [c. 9. p. 43.] Dei fuerat, &c. Recipit enim ilium 

c Signati autem sumus Spiritu Dei Dei Spiritum, quern tune de adflatu 

Sancto, ut et spiritus noster et anima ejus acceperat, sed post amisera per 

imprimantur signaculo Dei, et illam delictum. [p. 226.] 


276 Euffinus complained thai his version was interpolated. 


1 conse- 
qu enter. 

2 [Euse- 
bius of 

by in-breathing, as did the opponents whom he is refuting, 
nothing else than the soul of man itself,) denied that the 
in-breathing of the Spirit of God was of the very substance 
of God ; and from this it seems to have arisen that Jerome 
accused him, as though he had taught that the Spirit of 
God, the Third Person of the Godhead, was not of the sub 
stance of God, and was, consequently, a servant of God or 
a creature. If, however, any one does not like this con 
jecture of mine, he must, I think, of necessity maintain that 
Rufnnus version of the Apology of Pamphilus was corrupted 
by his opponents and Jerome s partizans ; and that Jerome 
laid hold of that accusation from some corrupted copy. It 
is indeed certain, that Ruffinus himself complains of some 
wrong of this kind done to his translation of Origen s work 
Trepl ap^wv, appealing to God who knows the hearts, to 
avenge the wrong. For he writes thus in the first book of 
his Invectives against Jerdme e ; They should have adduced 
my very words, just as I had translated. But now hear what 
they do, and see whether there be any precedent or example 
for their flagitious conduct. In the passage where it was 
written, But if you demand of me what I think concerning 
the Only-begotten Himself, let it not at once be thought by 
you either impious or absurd, if I say that the nature of God, 
who is naturally invisible, is not visible even to Him : for we 
will give you a reason in due course 1 / Now instead of what 
we wrote, We will in due course give you a reason/ they 
substituted, Let it not at once be thought by you either 
impious or absurd, that as the Son sees not the Father, 
so neither does the Holy Ghost see the Son/ Now if he 2 
who was sent from the monastery to Rome, as being mos.t 
expert in calumny, had committed such an offence in the 
courts, or in the affairs of the world, every one knows what 

e Ipsa, sicut transtuleram, mea ver- 
ba posuissent. Sed nunc ausculta, quid 
faciant; et flagitii eorum require, si 
ullum prsecessit, exemplum. In eo 
loco, ubi scriptum erat, Quod si requi- 
ris a me, quid etiam de ipso Unigenito 
sentiam, si ne ipse [ipsi ed. Ben.] qui- 
dem visibilem dicam naturam Dei, qui 
naturaliter invisibilis est, non tibi sta- 
tim vel impium videatur esse, vel ab- 
surdum : rationem quippe dabimus 
consequenter ; pro eo quod nos scrip- 

simus, rationem quippe dabimus conse 
quenter, illi scripserunt, Non tibi sta- 
tim impium vel absurdum videatur 
esse ; quia sicut Filius Patrem non videt, 
ita nee Spiritus S. videt Filium. Hoc 
si in foro positus vel negotiis saecula- 
ribus commisisset ille, qui de monas- 
terio Romam, quasi calumniandi peri- 
tissimus, missus est, norunt omnes, 
quid consequeretur ex legibus publicis 
ejusmodi criminis reus. Nunc vero 
quia ssecularem vitam reliquit, et a 

&p. BulPs conclusion respecting Orlyen, 277 

[punishment] a person convicted on a charge of this kind BOOK u. 
would have incurred from the public laws. But now that he 21, 22. 
has relinquished a secular life, and has turned himself from ORIGEN. 
the chicanery of public pleading to a monastery, and has 
attached himself to a distinguished teacher 1 , he learns from ^Jerome.] 
him a second time, instead of moderation, fury and mad 
ness; instead of quietness, to excite commotion; instead of 
peace, to kindle war; instead of concord, to awaken dissen 
sion ; to be perfidious for the faith, and a falsifier for truth." 
Presently after in the same book he gives this account con 
cerning the falsifier : " when he was reading out," he says, 
" a forged passage of this kind at Milan, and I declared that 
what he read was forged ; on being asked from whom he had 
procured his copy, he replied that a lady 2 had given it to 2 matro- 
him : I said of her, < Whosoever she be, I say nothing; but I celTa/T^" 
leave her to her own consciousness and that of God/" And 
this must suffice at present concerning Pamphilus Apology 
for Origen. 

22. To bring this chapter to a close at last ; in the course 
of a very attentive consideration of those passages of Origen, 
which have been adduced above, I come to this conclusion ; 
that this father, who has been attacked by the censures of 
so many divines, both ancient and modern, in respect of [355] 
the article of the divinity of the Son and even of the Holy 
Trinity, was yet really catholic ; although in his mode of ex 
plaining this article, he sometimes expressed himself other 
wise than Catholics of the present day are wont to do ; but 
this is common to him with nearly all the fathers who lived 
before the council of Nice. Further inasmuch as I have 
very carefully studied the works of Origen, and have accu 
rately weighed his history as the ancients have narrated it, 
I may be permitted freely to record my judgment of his 
theology in general, without offence to any one. He was 

tergiversations ilia actuum publicorum diolanum recitaret, et a me, quae exi- 
ad rnonastermm conversus est, et ad- gebat, falsa esse dicerentur, interro- 
haesit magistro nobili, ab ipso edocetur gatus a quo accepisset exemplaria, re- 
iterum pro modestia furere, insanire; spondit, Matronam quandam sibi de- 
pro quiete seditiones movere ; pro pace disse ; de qua ego, Guaecunque ilia 
rnovere bellum ; pro concordia movere est, nibii dico ; sed sui earn et Dei 
dissidia; perfidus esse pro fide, pro conscientiee derelinquo. Inter opera 
veritate falsarius. . . . Cum falsam, in- Hieron., torn. ix. p. 140. [vol. ii. 
quit, hujusmodi sententiam apud Me- p. 600.] 


278 Additional arguments for Origen 3 s orthodoxy. 

ON THE indeed a man, as all agree, of remarkable piety, but of a too 
BTANTIA" inquisitive and almost wanton genius. His piety and reli- 
OF gious reverence restrained him from making any innovation 
on the rule of faith, (of which a great part is the doctrine of 
the most Holy Trinity;) but on other points, which might be 
made matter of discussion without trenching on the rule of 
faith, yielding too much to his natural disposition, he put 
forward not a few opinions differing very widely from the 
views more commonly entertained by the teachers who were 
his contemporaries. To this class I refer his paradoxes con 
cerning the pre-existence of the soul, the stars being ani 
mated, an infinity of worlds, and the like. But even on these 
subjects he observed the modesty which becomes a pious 
person, in that he propounded them not in a dogmatic and 
positive manner, but as though he were diligently enquiring 
into the truth on points which had not yet been expressly 
defined by the judgment of the Church. On this the reader 
should by all means consult the Apology of Pamphilus near 
the beginning f. 

23. This judgment of mine concerning Origen, is con 
firmed by many other considerations, besides the testimonies 
which have been already adduced in this chapter. In the 
first place, the defenders of Origen, who were all catholic on 
128 the article concerning the Holy Trinity, at the same time 
[356] that they did not deny other heterodox sentiments, which 
were attributed to him, such for instance as those which we 
have just mentioned, but either excused or even defended 
them, still strenuously maintained, that in respect of the 
Trinity, Origen s own views agreed with those of all Catholics. 
It was on this ground, as we have just shewn, that Pam 
philus the Martyr and that anonymous apologist mentioned 
by Photius, defended Origen ; and that Didymus of Alexan 
dria, a man eminent for piety and erudition, and a most 
resolute supporter of the Nicene Creed, adopted the same 
course in his defence of Origen, is testified by Jerome him 
self, who, in his Apology against Ruifinus, thus addresses 
Kuffinus himself e: "What answer, he asks, will you make 

f See likewise, Huet s Origeniana: & Quid respondebis pro Didymo, 

ii. p. 189. [lib. ii. Qusest. 14. c. 3. qui certe in Trinitate catholicus est, 
11, 12. p. 255.] cujus etiam nos de Spiritu Sancto Ii- 

Didymus ; St. Basil, St. Greg. Naz. } Socrates ; 279 
on behalf of Didymus, who at any rate is orthodox on the BOOK n. 

docrine of the Trinity, and whose treatise on the Holy Ghost R" 23.* 
I myself have translated into Latin ? He certainly could not ORIGEN. 
have agreed to those things which heretics have added to the 
works of Origen ; and on those very books of Principles ! , * ^ 6 P* P- 
which you have translated, he wrote short commentaries, in x&> 
which he did not deny that what is written, is written by 
Origen, but [asserted] that we simple folk could not under 
stand what he said, and endeavours to persuade us in what 
sense they should be taken so as to have a good meaning. 
This, however, refers only to his statements respecting the 
Son and the Holy Ghost ; as regards other doctrines both 
Eusebius and Didymus do most openly give in to the te 
nets of Origen, and maintain that statements which all the 
churches reprobate, are catholic and religious." The words 
of Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History, iv. 26, about Basil 
the Great and Gregory of Nazianzum, are also worthy of 
observation 11 : " And yet," he says, " when the Arians ap 
pealed 2 to the books of Origen in confirmation, as they ] v 
thought, of their own doctrine, these confuted them, and 

shewed that they did not understand the meaning of Ori- [357] 
gen." In the second place, the earlier adversaries and the 
chief opponents of Origen, who on other points attacked him 
with the greatest vehemence, and with too much severity, 
were almost entirely silent respecting any heresy of his on 
the doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 
vi. 13, in treating of the leading accusers of Origen, viz., 
Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus, (whom 
speaking rather freely he calls " a quaternion 8 of calumnia- 
tors,") makes this observation respecting them i ; " But I 

affirm that even additional evidence in favour of 4 Origen re- 4 els <n 


brum in Latinam linguam vertimus ? mus apertissime in Origenis scita con- 
certe hie in iis, quae ab haereticis in cedunt, et, quod omnes ecclesise repro- 
Origenis operibus addita sunt, consen- bant, catholice et pie dictum esse de- 
tire non potuit ; et in ipsis irepl apx&v, fendunt. Tom. iii. p. 512. [ 16. vol. 
quos tu interpretatus es, libris breves ii.p. 507.] 

dictavit commentariolos, quibus non h /ccu rot, T&V kpsiavuv TO, nptytvovs 

negaret ab Origene scripta quae scripta /3i/3Aia els u.aprupiav, ws $OVTO, TOV iSiou 

sunt, sed nos simplices homines non /caAoiWa>z> Soy/j-aros, avTol 

posse intelligere quae dicuntur; et quo Kal tStiKvvov /J.TJ vo-fjcravras TOV 

sensu in bonam partem accipi debeant, vovs vvveffiv. [Socr. E. H. iv. 26.] 
pcrsuadere conatur. Hoc duntaxat de 700 Se TI, Kal ir\eov e/c TT)S e/cei- 

Filio et Spiritu Sancto; caeterum in vuv aiTtda-fcas els ffvaraaiv Qptyfrovs 

aliis dogmatibus et Eusebius et Didy- ^/wt. ot yap KivrjcravTes offairep yovTO 

280 from Sulpimas? account of the Council of Theophilus, 

ON THE suits from their accusations of him. For those who "brought 

BTANTXA- U P whatever points they thought worthy of blame, and in 

LITY OF the course of these did not at all censure him as holding 

THE SON. . . . . 

wrong opinions respecting the Holy Trinity, are hereby most 
clearly shewn to testify to his orthodox piety." Theo 
philus, indeed, (if we are to trust Jerome,) in the first of 
those Paschal Letters, which were translated into Latin by 
Jerome,, and are extant at this day both in the Bibliotheca 
Magna Patrum*, and among the works of Jerome 1 , does cen 
sure certain errors of Origen on the subject of the Trinity; 

1 nullo but these might easily * be explained if we had had leisure 
for it at present. It is certain, however, that Sulpicius 
Severus, an historian of very great credit, Dial. I. c. 3, in 
narrating the history of a council, which was convened in his 
[358] own times by Theophilus against the writings of Origen, 
writes to this effect" 1 ; "Many extracts from his books were 
read by the bishops, which were certainly opposed to the 
catholic faith; but the passage which excited the most un 
favourable feeling against him, was that, in which it was 
stated, that the Lord Jesus, even as He had come in the flesh 
for the redemption of man, had endured the cross for the 
salvation of man, and had tasted death for the immortality 
of man, so would He in the same order of suffering redeem 
the devil also ; inasmuch as it was befitting His goodness 

manet ^^ p * et ^ t * iat He who had renewed 2 ruined man, should 
likewise liberate the fallen angel." Now if it had been 
evident that Origen s opinions, touching the prime doctrine 
of Christianity, I mean, the most Holy Trinity, had been as 
impious as Jerome and others have alleged, surely Theophi 
lus and the bishops of his party, who ransacked e,very corner 
of Origen s writings, to find a handle for accusing him, and 
who seem to have been especially bent upon exciting the 

es &qia, Si >v &s KCIK>S So^dfrvra diam, in quo editum legebatur, quia 

irepl TTJS ayias rpidSos ov8 oAcos eVe /i- Doininus Jesus, sicut pro redemptione 

\l/avro, SeiicvvvTai irepKpai/uis TTJV 6pdr)i> hominis in carne venisset, crucem pro 

ebff&eiav ^aprvpowres avrtp. [Ibid. hominis salute perpessus, mortem pro 

vi.^13.] hominis aeternitate gustasset, ita esset 

[Tom. v. pp. 843, sqq. Lugd< 1677.] eodem ordine passionis etiam Diabolum 

1 [Tom. ii. pp. 545, sq.] redempturus ; quia hoc bonitati illius 

m Cum ab episcopis excerpta in li- pietatique congrueret, ut qui perditum 

bris illius multa legerentur, quae con- hominem reformasset, prolapsum quo- 

tra catholicam fidem scripta constaret, que angelum liberaret. Pag. 548. ed. 

locus ille vel maximam parabat invi- Lugd. Batavor. 1654. 

from EusebiiiS) and the History of his own times. 281 

greatest general ill-will against Origen, (whose authority BOOK n. 
the factious monks were making an ill use of against the CH A 23 IX 
Church,) would have exposed his heresy on this point 1 un- ORIGFN 
reservedly to all ; inasmuch as, in that age, this heresy, ! prsecipue. 
above all others, was regarded by Catholics (and justly 
so) with the greatest abhorrence. But they being wary 
men, knew full well that such an accusation might have 
been most easily refuted by the defenders of Or i gen, out 
of Origen s own unquestioned writings ; therefore they 
passed it by, and laid the stress of their charge against 
him on other heads, on which he could not be so easily 
defended. Severus adds in the same passage, that what 
was objected to Origen at that council was, in his own opi 
nion, an error, not a heresy, and yet it is certain, that the 
Arian doctrine was regarded by Severus as a most pesti- 129 
lential heresy ; it follows therefore that Origen was in no 
wise declared guilty of Arianism at that synod. Thirdly, 
that is worthy of observation, which Eusebius (in his Eccl. [359] 
History, vi. 2, near the end) relates respecting the con 
stancy of Origen in maintaining the orthodox faith, adding 
these words 11 ; c( Preserving even from boyhood the rule of 
the Church, and abominating 2 , as he somewhere himself 
says, using that very word, the doctrines of heresies." Surely /xei/os * 
no one who is familiar with Ecclesiastical History, can be 
ignorant that Origen was the foremost 3 and well nigh the 3 prima- 
only champion of the Church in defence of the catholic faith p^uni 
against whatsoever heresies were springing up in his time. cum - 
For, as often as, and wheresoever, there arose any heretic, 
who presumed to impugn the faith received in the Church, 
recourse was at once had to Origen alone ; that he, as an 
other David, might attack with his sling the Goliath who 
reproached the army of the Lord ; nay, he used to present 
himself of his own accord for contests such as this, (herein 
again resembling David,) out of the love and zeal which he 
bore to the truth. Surely no one at any time deserved more 
than Origen to be called malleus omnium hareticorum. Now 
the Catholic Church has at all times judged the doctrine con 
cerning the true Divinity of the Son to belong to the un- 

irov avrbs, ras TUV alp4~ 
<rwv Si5ao-.caA.ts.--[Euseb. E. 11. vi. 2.] 

282 His orthodoxy shewn from his own works, his teacher 

changeable rule of faith ; nor did Origen entertain any other 
view ; for in his first book, ire pi ap%cov } (as quoted by Pam- 
philus in his Apology,) in making a distinction between doc 
trines, which are necessary to be known and believed, and 
those which are not necessary, he puts amongst the necessary 
these following ; " First, that there is one God, who created 

all things Then next, that Jesus Christ was begotten 1 

of the Father before every creature . . . that whereas He was 
God, He became incarnate, and being made man He con 
tinued to be what He was, God. . . . Then next, that the Holy 
Ghost is associated with the Father and the Son, in honour 
[360] and dignity?." Amongst the doctrines that are not necessary, 
or in other words, questions which might be debated on either 
side, [so it be done] temperately and without detriment to 
the peace of the Church, he enumerates in the same passage, 
questions concerning the time and mode of the creation of 
angels, concerning the sun, the moon, and the stars, whether 
8 scilicet, they be animate or inanimate, &c. In the discussion, indeed 2 , 
of questions of this sort, Origen perhaps allowed himself too 
much freedom ; but so far as relates to those other doctrines, 
he scrupulously refrained from departing a hair s-breadth 
from the rule of faith which was fixed and established in the 
Church. Fourthly, Bellarmine s 1 argument (which we have 
elsewhere touched on incidentally 1 ") seems to me to be of 
great weight, however much the very learned Huet despised 
it. He proves that Origen was catholic on this article, from 
the orthodoxy and soundness of the opinions of his teacher 
Clement, and of his pupils, Dionysius of Alexandria, and 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, respecting the mystery of the most 
Holy Trinity. For, as regards Clement, I have already in 
treating of his belief, most evidently proved, that no one 
ever acknowledged or declared the catholic doctrine respect 
ing the consubstantial Trinity, more clearly than he. We 
shall hereafter shew the same as clearly with respect to Dio- 

Primo quod unus est Deus, qui p. 20.] 

omnia creavit . . . Turn deinde quia P These statements are found in the 

Jesus Christus ante omnem creaturam preface of his book -xepl apx.<av. 

natus ex Patre est. . . . Incarnatus est, GRABE. 

cum Deus esset, et homo factus mansit q JBellarminus de Christo I. 10. [vol. 

quod erat Deus. . . . Turn deinde ho- i. Op., p. 339.] 

nore ac dignitate Patri et Filio socia- r Supra c. vi. 1. [p. 182.] 
turn esse Spiritum Sanctum. [c. 1. 

and scholars ; and from the testimony of St. Athanasius. 283 

nysius of Alexandria, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, although BOOK u. 
the Jesuit Petavius has branded these two very great names, CH A 2s! X 
to the disgrace of his own name, with the mark of the Arian ORIGEN. 
impiety. What then ? is it likely, that the man who had a 
master so catholic on this article, and who had disciples so 
orthodox, who also at all times regarded their master with 
admiration as the most illustrious doctor of the Church, was 
himself heretical in that very article ? Fifthly, in the next 
place, the great Athanasius ought to be as good as a thou 
sand witnesses as to the orthodoxy of Origen on this ques 
tion : and he, in his work On the Decrees of the Nicene 
council, expressly declares 1 ", that Origen agreed with the [361] 
Nicene fathers respecting the very and eternal Godhead of 
the Son: his words are these; "Concerning the everlasting 
co- existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is 
not of another substance or hypostasis 1 , but properly 2 of \ovaias % 
the substance of the Father, as they in the council said, be ff(a ^ 
it permitted that you hear again from the labour-loving 3 2 "tow- 
Origen also." In this passage, however, before he quotes v fJ A 
the very words of Origen, Athanasius admits, that there are 
certain things premised by Origen in the passage which he 
is about to cite first, which are seemingly repugnant to sound 
doctrine; but these, he says, Origen states as a disputant, 
not as one who is making an absolute assertion, whilst the 
words which he himself adduces, contain the truly genuine 
opinion of Origen ; his words are : " For after what he ad 
vances as in an exercise of strength 4 against the heretics, 4 TO 
he immediately introduces his own views 6 , saying thus . . . s " 
He then quotes a famous sentence of Origen respecting the 5 ra. iSia. 
eternity and consubstantiality of the Son; to which he also 130 
subjoins a second from another of Origen s works ; which 
passages we reserve for our third book fc . And indeed, I 
have not myself the slightest doubt, that that method of 
discussion which Origen pursued in almost all 6 his writings, 6 fere ubi 
that, I mean, by which he was wont first to represent the 
opinions of the heretics, assuming as it were the person of 

r Trepl 5e TOV ai Stcos <Tvvelva.i rbv \6- Athanasii, torn. i. p. 227. [ 27. vol. i. 

yov T$ TraTpl, KOI JJ.T] erepas oucrias 3) p. 232.] 

uTrocrToo ews, aAAa rrjs TOV Trarpbs ftuoz/ s yuera yovv TO. &s eV yv/jLvao-ia \ey6- 

OLVT^V elVat, us elprjKaffiv ol ev rrj crw6- /xera Tiyibs TOVS alperiKovs, evOvs avrbs 

8cf>, e 5 e (rrco 7raA.ti/ w^uas aifovarai Kal ^TTi^epet TO. I8ia, Xeywv OVTUS. [Ibid.] 
Tropa TOV (pi\oirovov Clpiyevovs. Opera * [See book iii. 3. 1.] 

284 Si . Athanasius could best judge of Origen s orthodoxy. 

ON THE the heretics themselves, and afterwards to lay open the catho- 
STANTIA- ^ c doctrine, first gave to unlearned and ill-disposed persons a 
LITY OF handle for charging Origen himself with heresy, as though, 
z r-"" that is, he had defended those heretical positions in earnest. 
But Huet u says that Origen s view " was not seen through 
by Athanasius/ That learned man, however, will pardon 
us, if, notwithstanding, we are still persuaded, that Athana 
sius, a bishop of Alexandria, who lived so near the times of 
Origen, also of Alexandria, and who was moreover both a 
most industrious and most clear-sighted student of the works 
of Origen and of other ancient writers, saw through Origen 7 s 
opinions much better than any one amongst ourselves, who 
1 sens ne- are but their remote descendants *, can do. Huet, however, 
proceeds to say ; " I do not deny that Origen used these ex- 
pressions ; but that he used them in the same sense as the 
council of Nice, that I cannot admit." I answer again ; No 
one could have known the meaning of the Nicene council 
better than Athanasius, who was himself present at that 
council. Athanasius however testifies, that Origen altogether 
agreed in opinion with the Nicene fathers as well respect- 
8 dc c Filii ing the consubstantiality 2 of the Son as His co-eternity 3 , 
T^O^OO - and indee( j as concerns tne eternity of the Son, Huet will 
3 de ipsius not deny that this is true ; as to the consubstantiality, how- 
ever, he declares that he cannot admit it. And yet we have 
already shewn, clearly and at length, that the Nicene Bishops 
declared the Son to be of one substance with the Father in 
no other sense than that, which lays down that the Son is 
very God equally with the Father, not of any created or 
mutable essence. And that Origen acknowledged the Son 
to be of one substance with the Father in this very sense, we 
have abundantly proved, in this chapter. As to what is 
called the numerical unity of substance of the Father and 
the Son, (which Huet in the same place asserts that Origen 
denied,) I can clearly shew, that Origen acknowledged that 
unity, so far as any one of the more ancient fathers, and 
[363] even Athanasius himself, acknowledged it; that is to say, 
that Origen believed, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, whilst they are in very deed Three Persons, still do 
not by any means exist as three men, separately and apart 

Origenian., lib. ii. p. 33. [Qusest. 2, 5. p. 119.] 

Testimonies from St. Cyprian. 285 

from each other 1 , but that They intimately cohere together BOOK n. 
and are conjoined One with Another; and thus that they ex- C C " AP- *?: 

Zo. X. 1 

ist One in the Other, and, so to speak, mutually run into and " 

penetrate Each Other, by a certain ineffable Trept^wp^aLs, i s eorsimet 
which the schoolmen call circuminsessio ; from which irepi- se P ara tim. 
^wprfo-is 2 Petavius x contends, that that numerical unity neces- 2 ex qua m m 
sarily results ; there will, however, be a more suitable place efficl> 
for discussing this subject in another part [of our treatise] y ; 
meanwhile let us pass on from Origen to other fathers. 



1. CONTEMPORARY with Origen was Cyprian 2 ; [he was] CYPRIAN. 
during his lifetime chief bishop 3 of Africa, a man of the great- 3 pr imarius 
est sanctity and of a truly apostolic spirit, and who at last [j^ ^ 
obtained also the crown of a most glorious martyrdom. So mate.j 
pure and sound were both his sentiments and his expressions 
concerning the Divinity of the Son, that Petavius himself 
could find nothing whatever in his works to transfix with his 
mark 4 , or, as his way is, to asperse with the spot and stain of 4 veru at- 
Arianism. It may, therefore, suffice to adduce but few testi- ^ obel 
monies out of this writer. In the second book of his Testi 
monies against the Jews, addressed to Quirinus a , he proves 
most copiously from the Scriptures that Christ is God; attri- [364] 
buting unto Him all those things, which in the same Scrip 
tures are attributed only to the true and supreme God : 
Thus, in chap. 5 and 6, he quotes the passage of Isaiah, xlv. 
14 b , " For God is in Thee, and there is none other God be 
side Thee : for Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of 
Israel, the Saviour " that of Baruch also, iii. 35, " This is our 
God, and none other shall be accounted beside 5 Him ;" that * absque. 

x De Trinitate, iv. 16. b Quoniam in te Deus est, et non 

y Book iv. 4. 9 ; and following. est Deus alius prseter te : tu enirn es 

z He embraced Christianity about Deus, et non sciebamus, Deus Israel 

the year 246. Cave. BOWYER. Salvator, (Isa. xlv. 14); ... Hie Deus 

a [Page 284, &c.] noster, et non deputabitur alius absque 

286 St. Cyprian s Testimonies, a genuine work. 

ON THE of David also. Psalm xlvi. 10, "Be still 1 , and know that I 
STANTIA- am God, I will b e exalted among the heathen, and I will be 
LITY OF exalted in the earth ;" that of Paul also, Romans ix. 5, 
"Who is over all things God blessed for ever;" also that of 
the Apocalypse i. 8. and xxi. 6, " I am Alpha and Omega, 
the beginning and the end;" and that of Isaiah, again, 
xxxv. 4, " Our God will recompense judgment, He will come 
and save us ;" and that of the same Isaiah xlii. 8, I am the 
* ciarita- Lord God, that is My Name, My brightness 2 will I not give 
3< vh tutes ^0 another, nor My powers 3 to graven images." Now these 
and other passages, in which the Supreme God is clearly 
designated, Cyprian, I say, understands to be said of Christ. 
To which you may add that, in chap. 10. of the same book d , 
he professedly undertakes to prove ; " That Christ is both 
"concretus Man and God, made up or BOTH NATURES", that He might 
gener^ be the mediator between us and the Father;" words which 
pariter plainly imply, that Christ is equally of one nature 5 , or of 
- one substance, with God the Father, in that He is God, and 
w ith us men, in that He is Man. For the rest, it is certain, 
that these books of Testimonies, addressed to Quirinus, are 
the genuine production of Cyprian; since Jerome, Dial. I. 
against the Pelagians 6 , Augustine, book iv. against the two 
Letters of Pelagius, c. 8 and 10 f , Gennadius, in his Cata 
logue under Pelagius, and Bede, Retract, on Acts, c. iii., do 
all in express terms attribute them to Cyprian. The criti 
cism of Erasmus, therefore, is rash, when he declares that in 
his view it is more probable, that these books are not the 
[365] work of Cyprian. And as to the reason which he gives for his 
criticism, namely, that the author does not display Cyprian s 
sty.le any where, save in the preface, who w^ould not be sur 
prised that it should have fallen from so great a man ? For 
it was only in the preface that Cyprian could have displayed 
his style; inasmuch as the entire three books are nothing 

illo, (Baruch. iii. 35) ; . . Vacate et meam alii non dabo, neque virtutes 

cognoscite, quoniam ego sum Deus. meas sculptilibus, (Id. xlii. 8.) [ch. vi., 

Exaltabor in gentibus, et exaltabor in vii., pp. 286, 287. In translating these 

terra, (Psal. xlvi. 10) ; . . . Qui est passages S. Cyprian s version of the 

super omnia Deus benedictus in saecu- texts of Scripture is followed.] 

la, (Rom. ix. 5); ... Ego sum Alpha d Quod et homo et Deus Christus 

et Omega, initiutn et finis, (Apoc. i. 8; EX UTROQUE GENERE concretus, ut 

xxi. 6); ... Deus noster judicium re- Mediator esse inter nos et Patrem pos- 

tribuet, ipse veniet et salvos faciet nos, set [p. 288.] 

(Isa. xxxv. 4); . . . Ego Dominus e [ 32. vol. ii. p. 715.] 

Deus, hoc mihi nomen est, claritatem f [Vol. ix. p. 480, 485.] 

Other passages of St. Cyprian on the Divinity of the Son. 287 

else than a collection of testimonies of Scripture, arranged BOOK n. 
under certain heads, in citing which it was natural that the 1%. 
saint would follow the Latin version of the Scripture, which "CYPRIAN. 
was received and circulated in Africa in his own time. 

2. But in the other writings of Cyprian also, you may 
every where meet with passages which remarkably set forth 
the true Divinity of the Son. I will here produce one or 
two. In his 63rd epistle to Csecilius, near the beginning^, he 
calls Jesus Christ " our Lord and God," as he does a second 
time also in a subsequent part of the same epistle h . There 
is, however, a marked passage in his treatise On the Vanity 
of Idols, in which Cyprian thus speaks concerning the Word 1 ! Sermone. 
and Son of God 1 ; "As the Dispenser 2 and Master, there- 2 arbiter. 
fore, of this grace and teaching, the Word 1 and Son of God 
is sent, who was foretold of by all the prophets in times 
past as the Enlightener and Teacher of the race of man. 
This is the Power of God, This His Reason, This His Wisdom 
and Glory : He descends into the Virgin, and puts on flesh 
by the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, (or rather, as it should 
be read, the Holy Spirit puts on flesh,) God is united with 3 3 miscetur 
man, This is our God, This is the Christ." Here I embrace, 
as the true reading, carnem Spiritus sanctus 4 induitur, be- 
cause most of the oldest MSS. exhibit the passage in this 6 
form. Certain sciolists, as I conceive, corrupted the true text 
in some of the copies, supposing forsooth, that by the Holy 
Spirit none other than the Third Person of the Godhead 
could be meant. We have, however, elsewhere k shewn that 
Each several Person of the Trinity 5 , because of the divine 5 Unam- 
and spiritual nature common to the Three, is called 



* Jesus Christus, Dominus et Deus the Benedictine ; the emendation sug- 

noster. Page 84. [p. 104.] gested by Bp. Bull, as printed in the 

h Page 86. [p. 109.] Latin, stands thus, carnem Spiritus 

1 Hujus igitur gratiae disciplinaeque Sancti induitur, on which Dr. Burton s 

arbiter et magister Sermo et Filius note is, " Read Sanctus, the reading 

Dei mittitur, qui per prophetas omnes which some MSS. exhibit, and which 

retro illuminator et doctor human! ge- the Benedictine editor has received ;" 

neris praedicabatur. Hie est virtus no MS. reads Sancti; it may there- 

Dei, hie ratio, hie sapientia ejus et fore be inferred that the word which 

gloria, hie in Virginem illabitur, car- Bp. Bull intended in his emendation 

nem Spiritu Sancto co-operante indui- is Sanctus, and this view has been acted 

tur, (leg. carnem Spiritus Sancti indui- on in the translation]. 
tur, Bull.} Deus cum homine misce- k [Book i. 2. 5. p. 52. See also the 

tur, hie Deus noster, hie Christus est. Benedictine editor s preface to St. 

Page 170. [p. 228. The text is here Hilary s works, 57. B.] 
given as it stood in the editions before 


St. Cyprian on the Trinity. 


THE Spirit, both in the Scriptures and throughout the writings 
^ ie anc i en ts ; [a fact] which is also noted on this pas- 
LITY OF sage in the margin, in some of the MSS., as Pamelius in- 
timates, who, notwithstanding, thought that no alteration 
ought to be made in the reading, fearing, I suppose, lest the 
Antitrinitarians should draw their poison out of this place, 
and allege that Cyprian did not acknowledge the Third 
Person of the Godhead. Vain fear ! inasmuch as it is 
abundantly clear from many passages of Cyprian, that he 
believed in the whole consubstantial Trinity, an assertion 
which we may also with good grounds make with regard to 
the other fathers, who have used a similar mode of expres 
sion. Thus in his letter to Jubaianus, about baptizing here 
tics, he proves that the baptism of heretics is not valid by 
this argument 1 ; " If any one," he says, <( could be baptized 
among heretics, it follows that he might also obtain remis 
sion of sins. If he has obtained remission of sins, [he has 
also been sanctified and made the temple of God,] I ask, Of 
what God ? If [you say] of the Creator, he could not [be 
so] , for he has not believed in Him : if of Christ, neither 
could he have been made His temple, who denies that 
Christ is God. If of the Holy Ghost, seeing that the Three 
are One (cum tres unum sint,) how can the Holy Ghost be 
at peace with him who is an enemy either of the Son or of 
the Father?" Here you see that the Holy Ghost is ex 
pressly called God, equally with the Father and the Son, as 
we have already m observed was done by Tertullian. You 
may also, by the way, observe that Cyprian, in this place, 
certainly has an eye to the passage of John, in his 1st Epistle 
v. 7, "And these three are One" (et hi tres unum sunt). In 
his treatise On the Unity of the Church/ however, (chap. 4, 
near the end), he professedly quotes this passage, in these 
words 11 ; "Concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy 


1 Si, baptizari quis apud haereticos 
potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum 
consequi potuit. Si peccatorum remis- 
sam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, 
et templum Dei factus est; [si sanctifi- 
catus est, si templum Dei factus est,] 
quaero, cujus Dei? si Creatoris, non 
potuit, quia in eum non credidit : si 
Christi, nee hujus fieri potuit templum, 
qui negat Deum Christum : si Spiritus 

Sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo 
Spiritus S. placatus esse ei potest, qui 
aut Filii aut Patris inimicusest. Page 
106. [p. 133. The words within brack 
ets were omitted by Bp. Bull.] 

m [Page 202.] 

n [Et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et 
Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres 
unum sunt. [Page 195, 196 .] 

References to 1 John v. 7, by St. Cyprian and Tertullian. 289 

Ghost, it is written, And these Three are One 1 . " So also, BOOK u. 
before Cyprian, Tertullian manifestly alluded to the same c ^V 
passage in his work against Praxeas, c. 25 ; The connec- CYPRIAN. 
tion," he says, " of the Father in the Son, and of the Son unum. 
in the Paraclete produces Three coherent, one from another ; 
and these Three are one [substance] (unum}, not one [per 
son] (unus} P." This is to be observed in opposition to those 
who suspect that these words were introduced into the text 
of John by the Catholics, after the Arian controversy. To 
return, however, to the point from which I have digressed 
a little. Cyprian, in the same epistle to Jubaianusi, also 
proves that baptism conferred in the name of Jesus Christ 
only 2 , is of no efficacy, from the circumstance that " He 2 insoloJ.C. 
Himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and nomine - 
united 3 Trinity." Where by " the full and united Trinity" 3 adunata. 
it is manifest that the Three Persons, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost are designated, as all subsisting in one 
Godhead ; and, therefore, that the Holy Ghost, equally with 
the Son, is united 4 with God the Father in the same fellow- 4 adunari- 
ship of Divine honour 5 . 5 m eo( i em 

3. In opposition to these passages of Cyprian, so clear nori^con- 
and so express, Sandius r , in order to persuade the reader sortio - 
that this most blessed martyr favoured the heresy which was 
afterwards called Arian, brings forward, or rather refers to 6 , e indicat . 
certain expressions of Cyprian, which may seem to savour of 
Arianism 7 . Most of them, however, relate to the economy 8 i Arianis- 
of the Son ; as that Christ prayed to the Father to glorify mum sa ~ 
Him, and fulfilled His will even unto the obedience of drink- 
ing the cup, and of undergoing death, &c. Others are to 
be referred to the subordination of the Son, in that He is 
the Son, to the Father, as to His Principle and Author 9 . <> pr inci- 
On this ground it is, that Cyprian, in his 74th epistle, piumat ^ ue 
addressed to Pompeius, declares that the Holy Ghost is less " 
than the Son s , as he that is sent is less than he that sends 

" Connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii [Quando] ipse Christus gentes 

in Paraclete tres efficit coharentes, baptizari jubeat in plena et adunata 

alterum ex altero ; qui tres unum shit, Trinitate. Page 107 Tp 135 1 

non unus [quomodo dictum est, ego * Enucl. Hist. Eccles., i. p. 112, 

et Pater unum sumus ; ad substantial 113. 

umtatem non ad numeri singularita- . [Page 139. St. Cyprian does not 

am. rage 515. ] say tllis . his words are; Qui gt 

%r RI Ptism apud haereticos baptizatus Christum 

induere, multo magis potest Spiritum 


1 procrea- 

8 pnmo- 

xxiv. 3.] 



4 Libellus 

de Singu- 




5 cosequare 

290 The very unfair charges of Sandius. 

him. The rest are mere calumnies fastened by Sandius 
on the holy martyr; as, for instance, when he asserts that 
Cyprian taught, "that Christ was created 1 out of the mouth 
of the Most High." It is true that Cyprian, in the second 
book of his Testimonies against the Jews, c. 1, quotes the 
words of Solomon, (Prov. viii. 2230, inclusive,) with the 
view of proving, that " Christ is the First-begotten 2 , the 
Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made 1 ." He 
then cites a passage from Ecclus. xxiv. in which these words 
occur ; " I (Wisdom) came forth out of the mouth of the 
Most High, the first-begotten before every creature." But 
who would hence infer with Sandius, that Cyprian taught, 
that Christ was created 3 or made out of the mouth of God, 
like the word, that is, of a human being, which has no ex 
istence before it be put forth from the mouth, as the Valen- 
tinian and other heretics supposed. Nay, in these very 
books of Testimonies Cyprian expressly teaches out of the 
Scriptures, that the Son of God has neither beginning nor 
end of existence, as will be shewn in its proper place". 
With the like unfairness the sophist cites the following 
opinion as if it were Cyprian s; "That Christ did not pre 
sume to compare Himself to God, neither is He equal to 
Him, but that the Father is greater;" subjoining, "state 
ments which Huet in his Origeniana, bookiiL append, n. 12, 
allows to savour of Arianism;" and adds, "that is to^say, 
he thinks it robbery 5 , for Christ to be equal with God ; 
[and] that there is as much difference between Christ and 
God, as there is between the Apostles and Christ." The 
reader who loves the truth, however, should know, that in 
a short treatise on the Celibacy of the Clergy 4 , the follow 
ing words are indeed found x : " If Christ ventured to com 
pare Himself to God, who saith, My Father is greater than 
I ; or if the Apostles ventured to equal 5 themselves to Christ, 

sint .... Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi 
mmogenita ante omnein creaturam. 
"p. 284.] 

u [Book iii. ch. iv.] 
x Si Christus se ipsum comparare 
ausus est Deo, qui ait, Pater major me 
est; aut si Apostoli cosequare semet- 
ipsos ausi sunt Christo, et nos_hodie 
apostolis aequales facit consimilis for- 
titudo. Page 304. [p. clxxix.] 

Sanctum, quern Christus misit, acci- 
pere. Cseterum major erit mittente, 
qui missus est, ut incipiat foris bapti- 
zatus Christum quidem induisse sed 
Spiritum Sanctum non potuisse perci- 
pere: his argument, that on the view 
he is opposing the Holy Spirit would 
be greater than the Son He who is 
sent than He who sends.] 

1 Christum primogenitum esse, Sa- 
pientiam Dei, per quern omnia facta 


His extreme ivant of candour. 291 

a fortitude like theirs makes us also at the present day BOOK n. 
equal to Apostles;" but all learned men, at this day, in- c g P> 4 x 
eluding Huet himself, agree in thinking that this treatise is ~c YPI i IAN . 
spurious and supposititious. " That this work is not Cy- 133 
prian s," such are the words of Huet in the passage cited by 
Sandius, "is proclaimed by the following barbarous phrases, 
of a class of which you find none in the pure and polished 
language of Cyprian ; constitutionarios, repulsorium, vulgari- 
tatis, fluxurarum, probrositas, fyc. Who would say, that 
Cyprian was the father of monstrosities such as these ?" 
Here is an excellent specimen of the candour of Sandius ! 
Meanwhile, the words quoted, whosesoever they be, easily 
admit of a sound interpretation, and may be understood of 
Christ, whilst living upon earth, and fulfilling the economy 
of our redemption. Nay, that this was the very meaning 
of the author is apparent from his quoting, after a few in 
tervening sentences, the following words out of the Epistle 
to the Philippians, chap, ii.y; "Let this mind be in you, 
which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God 
thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied 
Himself 1 , and took upon Him the form of a servant." This 1 exinani- 
passage of Paul, thus translated, manifestly intimates that ^f^ 
Christ, inasmuch as He was 2 in the form of God, might in- 2 constitu- 
deed, without arrogance and without any injury to God His tus fuit 
Father, have thought Himself equal to God, and have borne 
Himself as such : but, notwithstanding, He emptied Him 
self, &c. Sandius again foully calumniates the saint, in at 
tributing to him presently afterwards this heresy; "That 
the Word" (in Christ) " was in the stead of a soul ;" for it 
is the unvarying doctrine of Cyprian, as all who are not 
altogether strangers to his writings are aware, that the Word, 
or Son of God, took on Him not only flesh, but man 3 and "hominem. 
the son of man, that is to say, true and perfect man, con- [ 3 ?0] 
sisting of a reasonable soul and a human body. 

4. But who, that has any love for truth and candour, 
could patiently endure this most shameless sophist, when 
he endeavours to prove out of Ruffinus, that Cyprian was 
an Arian? "Wherefore," these are his words, " Ruffinus, in 

* Hoc sentite de vobis, quod et in tus est esse se aequalem Deo, sed seme- 
Christo Jesu, qui cum in forma Dei tipsum exinanivit, formam servi acci- 
esset constitutes, non rapinam arbitra- piens. p. 305. [p. clxxix.] 

v 2 

292 The treatise of (Tertullian, or) Novatian, (corrupted and) 






3 fidemper- 
fidiaj suse. 

4 recenti 


5 invent^ 

his Apology for Origen, says, that very many in those parts/ 
(he is speaking of Constantinople,) were persuaded that the 
holy martyr Cyprian was of that belief, which has been set 
forth, not correctly, by Tertullian in his writings. Tertullian 
he certainly honoured with the title of master, and applied 
himself 1 daily to the study of his writings; and that Tertul- 
lian s belief was Arian, we have already stated." A little 
after he subjoins, " It is clear from the words of Ruffinus 
which immediately precede, that Arianism and Macedonian- 
ism were what Ruffinus and the orientals meant." But with 
what face could he have referred his reader to the preced 
ing words of Ruffinus? seeing that from them it will be 
clearer than noon- day, that most dishonestly is Ruffinus 
alleged to prove that Cyprian s belief was the same as that 
of Arius. Here, reader, is the passage of Ruffinus entire 7 ; 
"The whole collection 2 of the Epistles of the martyr St. 
Cyprian," he says, " is usually written in one volume : in 
this collection, certain heretics who blaspheme against the 
Holy Ghost, inserted a short treatise of Tertullian on the 
Trinity, written, so far as regards the truth of our faith, in 
a way open to blame; and making as many transcripts as 
they could from these copies, they caused them to be circu 
lated throughout the great city of Constantinople at a low 
price, in order that people, attracted by the smallness of 
the price, might the more readily buy their unknown and 
latent snares j that by this means the heretics might be 
able to gain belief for their misbelief 3 from the authority 
of so great a man. It happened, however, that not long 
after this had been done 4 , certain of our catholic brethren, 
happening to be there 5 , laid open the artifices of the villainy 
which had been practised, and in some measure recovered 
such as they could from the entanglement of this error; not- 

" See Ruffinus Apology for Origen 
among the works of Jerome, torn. ix. 
p. 131. Sancti Cypriani, martyris 
solet omne Epistolarum corpus in uno 
codice scribi. Huic corpori haere- 
tici quidam, qui in Spiritum S. blas- 
phemant, Tertulliani libellum de Tri- 
nitate reprehensibiliter, quantum ad 
veritatem fidei nostrae pertinet, scrip- 
turn inserentes, et quamplurimos co 
dices de talibus exemplariis conscri- 
bentes, per totam Constantinopolim 

urbem maximam distrain pretio viliori 
fecerunt, ut exiguitate pretii homines 
illecti ignotos et latentes dolos facilius 
compararent: quo per hoc invenirent 
baeretici perfidise suoe fidem tanti viri 
auctoritate conquirere. Accidit tamen, 
ut recenti adhuc facto quidam ex nos- 
tris fratribus catholicis inventi admissi 
sceleris commenta retegerent, et ex 
parte aliqua, si quos possent, ab erro- 
ris hujus laqueis revocarent. Quam- 
plurimis tamen in illis partibus, sane- 

inserted by heretics among the Epistles of Cyprian. 293 

withstanding, very many in those parts were persuaded that BOOK n. 
the holy martyr Cyprian was of that belief, which has been set ^ 
forth, not correctly, by Tertullian in his writings/ By this CYPRIAN. 
time any one may clearly see that the heretics at Constanti 
nople were Pneumatomachians, who were endeavouring to 
persuade others that Cyprian s belief was different from the 
catholic ; and that they went about to prove this not from 
any genuine work of the martyr, (inasmuch as he has every 
where written as a Catholic on the doctrine of the Holy 
Trinity,) but from a treatise of some other writer, which 
these worthless deceivers had themselves inserted among the 
works of Cyprian, by an impious fraud which was soon after 
discovered by the Catholics. And, in truth, no ecclesias 
tical writer has ever stated that Cyprian wrote a work 011 
the Holy Trinity. Nor indeed do I believe that that treatise 
which these heretics circulated 1 was Tertullian s throughout, i vendita- 
but that it was in many places corrupted by themselves. tum< 
For Tertullian never held the opinions of the Pneumatoma- 
chiaiis, but, even when he had fallen into heresy, constantly 
believed three Persons of one Godhead, and expressly called 
the Holy Ghost God, as well as the Father and the Son, as 
is evident from the passages which we have already quoted 
from him. But the Catholics of that period did not care 
much about the character and reputation of Tertullian ; for, 
on account of other doctrines of his, he was at that time 
regarded among all the orthodox as a heretic and an alien 
from the Church. Of Novatian, too a , whose treatise on the 
Trinity (the one, I mean, which is now extant among the 
works of Tertullian) was thought by Jerome to have been [372] 
that which was circulated by the heretics, almost the same 
must be said b ; for he too held the catholic view on the 
Trinity, as we shall presently shew. The reader, however, 134 
may see further from these and many other indications, what 
it is that Sandius means by " bringing out the kernel 2 of ec- 2 enucleare. 
clesiastical history ;" namely, to seek out and bring together, 
from every quarter, exploded and silly stories, and manifest 

turn martyrem Cyprianum hujus fidei, a See Jerome, advers. Ruffin. Apol. 

quae a Tertulliano non recte scripta ii. 5, sub fin em, [ 19. vol. ii. p. 513.] 
est, fuisse persuasum est. [Epilog. ad b [That is, that his work was cor- 

Apol. sive de Adult. Lib. Orig., p. rupted by those who circulated it as 

53.] St. Cyprian s.] 

294 Novatian on the Trinity; Petavius criticism of the work 

ON THE falsehoods, wherewith to gain credit and authority for the 
STANTIA- condemned heresy of the Arians. And thus far have we laid 
LITY OF O pen the views of Cyprian. 

NOVATIAN. 5< ^ ext to Cyprian follows Novatian, or the author of the 
treatise On the Trinity , which we have just mentioned. 
Of this author Petavius d declares, "that he did not speak 
with sufficient accuracy, nay, that he has made very many 1 
absurd statements" respecting the mystery of the Trinity; 
and Sandius 6 , relying, as usual, too much on Petavius s judg 
ment, classes him amongst those who taught the same opin 
ions as Arius, before his time. It will, however, be shewn in 
its proper place, that these inaccurate 2 and absurd state 
ments ought to be referred either to the economy 3 of the 
^mTnorita- Son or to ^ iat &r\ority 4 which the Son has when com- 
tem. pared with the Father, regarded as His Author and Prin- 

5 auctorem ciple 5 , which [inferiority] has been acknowledged by all Ca- 
piuir!. nC1 tholics, even since the council of Nice. In the meantime 

we will prove, by adducing a few, but those very clear testi 
monies from the author himself, that, whoever he was, he by 

6 in rei no means agreed in opinion with Arius on the chief point 6 . 

To this proof we premise this one observation, that Petavius 
himself elsewhere f acknowledges, in express terms, that those 
[373] < inaccurate and absurd statements/ which the author in 
serted in his work, " are at variance with the catholic rule, 
either in the mere mode of expression, or at any rate without 
7 citra my s- trenching on the substance of the mystery 7 ." With this 
stantiam. brief observation, let us pass on to the subject itself. In the 
8 divinita- twenty-third chapter g the author thus establishes the divinity 3 
strait of Christ; "If Christ be merely man, how is it that He says, 
[John xvi. f I came forth from God, and am come/ since it is certain 
that man was made by God, and did not come forth from 
God ? but in a manner in which man did not come forth 
from God, did the Word of God come forth [from Him] ;" 
presently he adds, " [It was] God, therefore, [that] came 

c Novatian wrote this treatise "on quomodo dicit, Ego ex Deo prodii, et 

the Trinity," about the year 257. It veni, cum constet hominem a Deo fac- 

is usually printed with the works of turn esse, non ex Deo processisse? e.x 

Tertullian. Cave. BOWYER. Deo autem homo quomodo non pro- 

d De Trinit. i. 5. 5. cessit, sic Dei Verbum processit. . . . 

e Enucl., Hist. Eccl., i. p. 110. Deus ergo processit ex Deo, dum qui 

f Preface to vol. ii. 5. 3. processit Sermo, Deus est, qui pro- 

K Si homo tantummodo Christus, cessit ex Deo. [p. 721.] 

his orthodoxy shewn, and vindicated. 295 

forth from God, inasmuch as the Word which came forth is BOOK n. 
God, who came forth from God." What is there said, almost 
in the Nicene Creed itself, more explicitly opposed to Arius ? 
for the author expressly opposes these two things, to be made 
by God, and to come forth from God ; and he affirms no less 
expressly that Christ, in His more excellent nature, was not 
made; in other words 1 was not 2 created, but proceeded from l sive. 
God Himself, and therefore is God of 3 God. A little after- * minime - 

3 e x. 

wards in the same chapter 11 , he says again ; " If Christ .be 
only man, what is [the meaning of] that which He says, 
I and the Father are One ? For in what sense [is it true 
that] I and the Father are One/ if He be not both God 
and Son, who on that account may be called One [with 
the Father], in that He is of Him 4 , and in that He is His 4 exipso. 
Son, and in that He is born of Him, seeing that He is 
found to have proceeded from Him, through which also 
He is God." From this passage there is a clear refutation 
of Petavius s calumny against the author of this treatise, 
where he alleges that 1 " he explained those words in the tenth 
of John, I and the Father are One/ in a manner almost 
Arian ;" quoting, in confirmation of this censure, those words 
of his out of the 22nd chapter k ; " But in that He saith One/ 
it is with reference to concord, and sameness of sentiment, 
and to the fellowship itself of love ; so that the Father and [374] 
the Son are with good reason One, through concord, and 
through love, and through affection." But, I affirm, it is 
certain from the passage which we just now adduced, that 
the author altogether understood those words of John as 
Catholics do, not of concord alone, or consent of will, (as 
the Arians did,) but also, and primarily, of that commu 
nion of substance which exists between the Father and the 
Son. This indeed the author expresses clearly enough in 
that very passage which Petavius cites : in that he imme 
diately subjoins these words, (which Petavius against all good 

h Si homo tantummodo Christus, Deus est. [p. 722.] 
quid est quod ait, Ego et Pater unum Ubi supra. 

sumus ? quomodo enim Ego et Paler k Unum autem quod ait, ad concor- 

unum sumus, si non et Deus est et diam et eandem sententiam, et ad ip- 

Filius, qui idcirco unum potest dici, sam charitatis societatem pertinet ; ut 

dum ex ipso est, et dum Filius ejus merito unum sit Pater et Filius per 

est, et dum ex ipso nascitur, dum ex concordiam, et per amorem, et per di~ 

ipso processisse reperitur, per quod et lectionem. [p. 720.] 


4 utrum-- 
que sit. 

5 alterum. 

6 alterum. 


296 Novatian on the Consubstantiality of Him Who is 

faith 1 suppresses 1 ;) " And since He is of 2 the Father, what 
soever That 3 is, the Son is ; the distinction still remaining, 
that He who is the Son, be not the Father, forasmuch as 
neither is He the Son, who is the Father." For, without 
doubt, he is here attacking exclusively the heresy of Sabellius, 
which declares the Father and the Son to be in such sense 
One, as altogether to do away with the distinction of Persons. 
In opposition to this heresy he teaches, that the Father and 
Son are indeed One, as well by consent of will as by unity of 
substance also, since the Son is derived from the very foun 
tain of the Father s essence; but that notwithstanding they 
are altogether Two in subsistence, or (in other words) in per 
son. Certainly the unfairness of the Jesuit Petavius towards 
the ancient writers is quite intolerable, in thus wresting, as 
he does throughout, to a foreign and heretical sense, their 
sound and catholic statements, [and that] in opposition to 
their own evident mind and view. 

6. But I return to our author, in order to adduce but 
one passage more from him, such as to confirm most clearly 
the Consubstantiality of the Son. It will be found in the 
eleventh chapter" 1 , where the author thus speaks of the two- 
fold nature of Christ, the divine and the human: "For 
Scripture as well proclaims on the one hand that the Christ 
is God, as it proclaims on the other hand that God is very 
man : it sets forth as well Jesus Christ [as] man, as it sets 
forth the Lord Christ [as] God also. Forasmuch as it does 
not put before us that He is the Son of God only, but also 
[that He is the Son] of man ; nor does it say that He is 
[the Son] of man only, but is wont to speak of Him as 
[the Son] of God also; that so, seeing He is of Both, He 
may be [proved to be] Both 4 , lest, if He were One of the 
Two 5 only, He could not [be proved to be even] that One 6 . 


1 Et quoniam ex Patre est, quicquid 
illud est, Filius est; manente tamen 
distinctione, ut non sit Pater ille qui 
Filius, quia nee Filius ille qui Pater 
est [Ibid.] 

m Tarn enim Scriptura etiam Deum 
adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum 
hominem adnuntiat Deum ; tarn ho- 
minem descripsit Jesum Christum, 
quam etiam Deum quoque descripsit 

Christum Dominum. Quoniam nee 
Dei tantum ilium Filium esse propo- 
nit, sed et hominis; nee hominis tan 
tum dicit, sed et Dei referre consuevit; 
ut dum ex utroque est, utrumque sit, 
ne, si alterum tantum sit, alterum esse 


the Son of God and of man, both with God and with man. 297 


GOD, WHO is OF GOD ; lest, if He be not God also, whenas NOVATIAN. 
He is of God, He be not man either, albeit He be of man ; 
and so in either one of the two both be endangered, the 
one being proved to have lost its credibility through the 
other." Surely, his mind must be completely in the dark, 135 
who does not at once clearly see, that in these words it is 
most explicitly taught, that Christ is consubstantial with God 
the Father, in that He is of God, just as He is consubstantial 
with us men, in that He is of man ; and that He is not less 
very God, than He is very man. For the rest, I will add 
concerning this author, though it is not required by my 
argument l , that he held the catholic doctrine respecting the 1 ex abun- 
Holy Ghost also. For in chap. 29, at the very beginning, 
he teaches that, according to the rule of faith, we must 
believe not only in the Father and the Son, but also in the 
Holy Ghost : and in the course of the chapter, he assigns 
to the Holy Ghost such powers and operations as are in 
no wise compatible with a created being : and lastly, near 
the end of the chapter, he expressly attributes to the same 
Holy Ghost "divine eternity." In what sense, however, he 
said that the Holy Ghost is less than the Son we have shewn 
elsewhere n . And let it suffice to have said thus much at 
present concerning this author. 

7. We shall number Theognostus of Alexandria with the THEO- 
writers mentioned in this chapter ; although the age when GNOSTUS - 
he lived is scarcely ascertained . This one thing we may be [376] 
assured of, that he was much earlier than the Nicene council, 
and later than Origen. It is certain that he was later than 
Origen, because Photius taunts 2 him as a follower of Origen. 2 SU giiiat. 
But that he lived long before the council of Nice you may 
gather from the fact, that Athanasius (in his treatise on 
that passage in the Gospel, " Whosoever shall speak a word 
against the Son of Man," &c.) enumerates P him among " the 

DENDUM ESSE, Qui EX DEO SIT; ne si " See above, c. 3. 17. [p. 132.] 
non et Deus fuerit, cum ex Deo sit, Theognostus seems to have Hou- 

jam nee homo sit, licet ex homine fue- rished about the year 270. Cave. 

rit, et in alterutro utrumque periclite- BOWYER. 

tur, dum alterum altero fidem perdi- P Tom. i. p. 971. [Epist. iv. ad Se- 

disse convincitur. [p. 713.] rap. 9. vol. i. p. 702. J 

298 Theognostus ; extract from him in St. Athanasius ; 




2 eirevpe- 

4 airav- 


5 Trj evep- 
yeia /J.T] 

ancients," (TraXaiovs avbpas) ; and places his testimony next 
after that of Origen. The same Athanasius, in his work on 
the Decrees of the Nicene council q , calls him " a learned 
man," (av&pa \6^iov } } and in the treatise quoted just before 
he gives him the appellation of " the admirable," (rbv Gav- 
^daiov) . He was the author of books of the Hypotyposes * 
which have long ago been lost. But out of the second of 
them Athanasius quotes this illustrious testimony to the con- 
substantiality^ "The substance of the Son is not any one 
that was brought in 2 from without, nor was it superinduced 
out of nothing ; but it sprang 3 from the substance of the 
Father, as the radiance 4 of the light, and vapour of water; 
for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself, 
or the sun itself; nor yet is it any thing alien, but it is an 
effluence of the Father s substance, yet so that the Father s 
substance underwent not division. For as the sun remains 
the same and is not diminished by the rays poured forth by 
it, so neither did the Father s substance undergo alteration, 
in having the Son an image of itself." Surely nothing was 
ever said, even in the venerable council of the Nicene fathers 
itself, more expressly opposed to the Arians. 

8. And, consequently, that cannot be true which Photius 
writes, cod. 106, (which yet not only Sandius s , but the very 
learned Huet 4 also, places confidence in,) to the effect that 
this Theognostus taught, and that in the very book which 
Athanasius cites, the second book of the Hypotyposes, that 
the Son of God, in the sense in which He is properly the Son 
of God, is a created being. Nay, Photius himself detracts 
from his own trustworthiness, when, towards the conclusion 
of the same chapter, he states that Theognostus said that the 
Son of God is " not circumscribed in His operation 5 ," which 
certainly cannot be said of any creature. Moreover he soon 
after admits that this writer, in the seventh book of his Hypo 
typoses, treated with more reverence 6 both of other subjects, 

air 6 pp oia. 

Tom. i. p. 274. [ 25. vol. i. p. 

r OVK eo>0eV T LS <TTIV e$eupe0e?(ra rj 
TOV vlov ovtria, ovSe CK /LL^J OVTUIV eirfi- 
(T77X077, aAAa l/c TTJS TOV irarpbs ovarias 
<j)v, u>s TOV (fitoTbs Tb a.Travyao /J.a, ws 
vSaTos O.T/J.IS OVT yap Tb airavyaff/na, 
OVTC f) aTfils, avTb TO vScap eVrii/, ^ 
avTbs 6 rj\tos OVTS a.\\6rpiov, aAAa 

TOV iraTpbs ovo-ias, ov 
VJS TOV iraTpbs 
ovo~ias. us yap fj.4v<av 6 )\ios 6 avrbs 
ov /uetoGrai TOIS *Kxeo/J.evais VTT avrov 
avyais, OVTWS ovSe }) ovo- ia TOV YlaTpbs 
a\\oico<nv vire/j.eivev 
aa Tbf vi6v. Ibid. 

Enucl. H. E., i. p. 109. 
1 Origenian., p. 45. [p. 134.] 

a charge of Photius against him easily removed. 299 
" and especially, towards the end of the book, concerning BOOK n. 


the Son 11 ." Certainly, what Theognostus wrote in that place 7) 8> * 
respecting the Son of God must have been very excellent, T^EO^~ 
when Photius himself commended it as expressed with espe- GNOSTUS - 
cial reverence 1 . But who can believe, that so great a man, as 1 pie im- 
it is certain Theognostus was, could maintain in the same 
treatise positions so incompatible? The truth is, Photius, 
from his very bitter hatred to Origen, was unfair towards 
this Theognostus also, his follower and defender, and on that 
account he understood his writings in a bad sense, or rather 
wished them to be so understood by others. Theognostus, it 
would appear 2 , made that statement as the opinion of others, 2 scilicet. 
with whom he was disputing, and not as declaring his own L 3 78 ] 
view. This is gathered, not obscurely, from Photius himself, 
for, after charging Theognostus with the blasphemy in ques 
tion, he soon after introduces a supposed person defending 
that illustrious man, on the ground that he had put forward 
these statements, "by way of argument, and not as his own 
opinion," (ev yv^vaalas \OJM KOI ov So^rjs). And this Pho 
tius does not deny, but only censures a method of disputa 
tion of that kind, at least respecting the divine mysteries, 
and in a written discourse ; although I have no doubt that 
he would have easily forgiven this fault in any other writer 
who was not an Origenist. The great Athanasius, however, 
puts the point beyond all controversy; for, after having re 
cited the testimony of Theognostus, which we have quoted 
above, he immediately adds x ; " Theognostus then, having 
prosecuted the above enquiries in the way of argument, 
afterwards, in laying down his own view, expressed himself 
thus." It is therefore clear that, in this second book of Hy- 136 
potyposes, Theognostus had first put forward the views of the 
heterodox, and amongst them the opinion of those, who said 
that the Son of God was a created being : and this in such 
a way as, to a certain degree, to assume their character, and 
represent their arguments ; that at last, however, he stated 
his own purely catholic view, which was opposed to theirs, in 
the words quoted by Athanasius. 

TTUS 7T6pl T6 TWV * 6 /J.CV 0?)V 6jUCaffTOS, TCI, TTpdrepO. 

SiaAa/u/Bai/et,] Kal juaAitrra irpbs d>s eV yv^vaaria eeTacras, uarepov T^V 

T<p reAet rot) \6yov trepl rov vlov. eauroG 8Jaj/ Ti6fls, OVTUS ttpr)KfV. [S. 

[Phot. cod. 106.] Athan., ubi supra.] 

300 Operations of the whole Trinity are ascribed specially 
ON THE 9. That which Photius further objects against Theognos- 
". tus ; namely, that he taught that the Son of God " presides 
Ver rational bein " s onl y/ (v ^oyiK&v fi6vov eTrtarareiv,) 
is easily removed. For it would seem that the holy man by 
no means meant, that the dominion of the Son is in such 
wise tied to rational creatures, as that the other creatures are 
excluded from His rule. Far be it ! For how could he have 
restrained the divine providence and power of the Son of God 
[379] from any one of God s creatures, who declared, as Photius 
himself, as we have seen, admits, that the Son is in no de 
gree whatsoever circumscribed in His power and operation ? 
What follows ? Without doubt Theognostus meant the same 
as his master Origeii, who, as Photius (cod. 8) reports, taught y 
"that the Father indeed pervades all things that exist, the 
Son so far only as rational beings, the Holy Ghost so far 
only as the saved." And how these statements are to be 
understood, we learn from Huet in his Origeniana z ; " These 
* aircrews assertions," he says, "if taken thus apart from the context 1 , 
impta. coul( j scarcely escape censure. But if any one will look rather 
to the meaning of Origen than to his words, he will think 
otherwise. For although the external operations of the Holy 
Trinity be one and the same, and whatsoever in things ex 
ternal [to the Godhead] the Father doeth, that the Son also 
doeth, [and] that the Holy Ghost also doeth ; still there are 
certain things which are usually assigned to the Father, others 
to the Son, others to the Holy Ghost. As, therefore, to 
the Father is commonly attributed the creation of the world, 
although it is [the work] of the Three Persons equally, so does 

2 \6yos. Origen ascribe to the Son, who is Reason 2 , the care of all rea- 

3 \oyiK&v. sonable beings 3 , and assigns to the Holy Ghost the bestowing 

of holiness, according to Eomans i. 4, and 2 Thess. ii. 13, al 
though it be owing to the whole Trinity. In 1 Peter i. 2, it is 
written According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, 

4 in sancti- unto sanctification 4 of the Spirit,unto obedience and sprinkling 

n " of the blood of Jesus Christ/ " That this was Origen s mean 
ing Huet proves from the clearest testimonies alleged out 
of his works. To these he also adds an illustrious passage of 

y 5i-f]Kiv juef rbv irarepa Sia TTOLVTUV ibid,] 

rcav OVTOW, rbv 5e vibv pexpt TUV Xovi- ^ Lib. ii. p. 46, 47. [Qusest. 2. 28. 

K&V fj.ovov [/j,6vtav~], rb 8e Tn/eu/ia /u-*XP l P- 135.] 

to One Person ; Paschasius and Augustine on this point. 301 

Paschasius the deacon, on the Holy Spirit, book i. c. 9 a , who BOOK n. 
adopts the sentiment of Origen, and writes thus; "So far as it CH x A 9 x 
is found most manifestly in the Holy Scriptures, the Father THEO _ 
Himself performs some operations by Himself, others in a GN <>STUS. 
special manner by the Son, others by the Holy Ghost, al 
though under the privilege 1 of a power common [to all x sub pri- 
Three.] That we exist seems properly to be referred to ^tfa P ~ 
the Father, in whom/ as the Apostle says, we live, and communis. 
move, and have our being : that, moreover, we are capable 
of reason, and wisdom, and righteousness, is especially at 
tributed to Him, who is Reason, and Wisdom, and Righte 
ousness, i. e., to the Son; and that being called we are 
regenerated, and being regenerated are renewed, being re 
newed are sanctified, is evidently ascribed in the divine ora 
cles to the Person of the Holy Ghost." He further adds 
also a very remarkable testimony of Augustine b ; " Just as 
we call the Word of God alone peculiarly 2 by the name of 2 proprie. 
Wisdom, although, in a sense which includes all 3 , both the 3 univer- 
Holy Ghost and the Father Himself be Wisdom ; so is the saliter 
Holy Ghost peculiarly designated by the name of Love 4 , al- 4 charitatis. 
though, in a sense which includes all 5 , both the Father and 5 univer- 
the Son be Love." For the rest, the statement which the sallter * 
same learned Huet had before made in the same passage, 
that Athanasius, in his treatise on Matthew xii. 32, "had 
condemned 6 both Origen and his disciple Theognostus" on c expio- 
account of these statements, is not true. For Athanasius only sisse 
reminds us that the statements of both should be considered, 
and some deeper sense sought for in them. His words are 
these : " But I, from what I have learned, think that the 
opinion of each requires some measure 7 of examination and 7 

n Quantum in Scripturis sanctis vol. v. part 3. p. 737.] 
manifestissime deprehenditur, alia Pa- b Sicut unicura Dei Verbum pro- 

ter ipse per se, alia specialiter per prie vocamus nomine sapientice, cum 

Filium, alia per Spiritum Sanctum, sit universaliter et Spiritus Sanctus, et 

licet sub privilegiopotentise communis, Pater ipse Sapientia; ita Spiritus S. 

operatur. Quia sumus, ad Patrem pro- proprie nuncupatur vocabulo charitalis, 

prie referri videtur ; in quo, sicut apo- cum sit universaliter charitas et Pater 

stolus dicit, vivimus, movemur, et sumus. et Filius.- Lib. xv. de Trinit. cap. 17. 

Quod vero rationis, et sapientise,et jus- [vol. viii. p. 989. 31.] 
titiae capaces sumus, illi specialiter, qui c tyb 5^ ty wv i^aQov, vonifa T^V 

est ratio et sapientia et justitia, id est, ewarepou SidvoLav /uerpias rivbs So/a^a- 

Filio deputatur. Quod autem vocati <n as e7rt5cT(T0oi KCU KaTavo-f)<Tea>s, ^ apa 

regeneramur, et regenerati innovamur, /ce/fpt^eVos ecrrt TIS eV avrols rots v-rrb 

innovati sanctificamur, per divina elo- avrSiv elprj/uLei ois fiaOvrepos vovs. Oper. 

quia personae Spiritus Sancti evidenter Athanas., torn. i. p. 972. [Epist. iv. ad 

adscribiter. [Bibl. Patr. Colon. 1618. Serap. 12. voL i. p. 703.] 

302 Dionysius of Rome. 

ON THE consideration, whether [it may not be 1 that] there is some 
STANTIA- actual deeper meaning hidden under their statements." This 
LiTY OF certainly is not to reject Origen and Theognostus on account 

of these statements. That profounder sense, moreover, Huet 

has himself drawn out and given to us. And let thus much 
be said of the doctrine and faith of the holy Theognostus. 




1. DIONYSIUS, bishop of Rome, who, whilst yet a presbyter, 
had been designated by his namesake, Dionysius of Alexan 
dria, " a learned and admirable man," (\6yi6s re teal Oav^d- 
aios 6 -,} flourished 6 in the reigns of the emperors Yalerian and 
[390] Gallieiius. In the fragments of this Dionysius there is nothing 
that incurs the censure of Petavius, as savouring of Arianism ; 
on the contrary he is praised by him, as entertaining thoroughly 
catholic views regarding the Holy Trinity. Sandius himself 

^ nihil non too, who has left nothing unturned 2 in antiquity, which might 
seem to make ever so little in favour of the Arians, very wisely 
observes a complete silence concerning this writer, both in 
his work on Ecclesiastical writers, and in his Nucleus of Ec 
clesiastical History. In order, however, that the reader who 
loves truth may not be ignorant of so great a vindicator and 
witness of the catholic faith, we will bring forward his tes 
timony. He wrote a learned epistle against the Sabellians, 
which is lost ; a portion of it, however, of some length, well 

3 auro con- worth its weight in gold 3 , has been preserved by Athanasius ; 
in which there is contained a most complete confession of the 
Holy Trinity. For after having therein refuted the dogma 
of Sabellius, Dionysius goes on thus to speak against another * 
heresy, the opposite of the Sabellian f ; "And I should natu 
rally, in the next place speak also against those who divide, 

d See Eusebius, H.E.,vii. 7. [These Roman Church from the year 259 to 

are the words of Eusebius, not of Dio- the year 269. Cave BOWYER. 

nysius. B.] f e|7?s &j/ fi^rus \eyoifjLi KO.} irpbs 

* He held the episcopate of the Sicupovvi as, KOI Ka.Tartp.t oi Tas, KOL aval- 

tra non 

His full testimony to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 303 

and cut up, and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the BOOK n 
Church of God, the Monarchy, dividing it into three powers 
(so to say 1 ), and divided hypostases 2 , and Godheads three. 
For I understand that there are some of the catechists and 
teachers of the divine word among you, who are introduc- 
ing this opinion ; who are, so to speak, diametrically opposed 
to the opinions of Sabellius. For he blasphemes by assert- 
ing that the Son Himself is the Father, and conversely [that 
the Father is the Son] ; whilst these, in some sort, preach 
three Gods, dividing the Holy Unity 3 into three hypostases, 
foreign to each other 4 [and] wholly separated. For the Di- 
vine Word must needs be one 5 with the God of all; and the 
Holy Ghost must needs repose 6 and habitate 7 in God; and 
further, thus 8 the Divine Trinity 9 must be gathered up and 

brought together into One 10 , as into a point 11 , the God (1 7 
mean) of all, the Almighty." These words are so express, * 
that they need no inference of ours to shew, how extremely 8 ^ KaL 
full and simple is the exposition, which they contain, of the 9 
whole doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in opposition to all here- 2 
sies whatsoever. The same Dionysius, however, shortly after n 
subjoins the following words against those who affirmed that 
the Son of God was a created being g ; "And no less should 
one censure those also who imagine that the Son is a thing 
made 12 , and consider that the Lord has come into being 13 12 
just as one of the things that have been really brought into v 
being 14 ; whereas the divine oracles attest for Him a beget- 14 r&v ov 
ting, such as is suitable and becoming, but not any form- J2J^* 
ing and making." He immediately adds these words h ; "It 142 

povvras TCI (refj.v6TO.Tov K-f]pvy/J.a rrjs TpidSa ets eVa, wffirep eis Kopvcpyv TWO., 

fKK\f](rlas TOV ov, TTIV fi.ova.pxiw, ets TCH/ ecu/ rcav o\tav TOV Tra.VTOKpa.TOpa 

Tpe?y Svvd/j.eis Tivas, Kal yU6jU.epicryU.eVas \eyaj, ffvyKcfyaXaLovcrOcti Tf Kal o~vvd- 

viroorTda-fis, Kal fleciTT/Tas Tpels TTC TTU- jff9ai iraaa avajK-r]. Athanasius, de 

<ryucu yap flvai Tivas T&virap V/MV warrj- Decretis Synodi Nicseae,tom. i. p. 275. 

XOVVTOCV Kal o~LoacrK6vT(av TOV QIOV \6- [ 26. vol. i. p. 231.] 
yov TavTfis v(p7)yr)Tas rrjs ^pov-nffecas s ov fj-flov 8 av ns KaTa^^oiro 

o? /cara SidueTpov, us evros etVe?i/, avTi- Kul rovs iroir)fA.a rbi/ vibv flvai 8odov- 

KfiVTai Trj 2a/8e\Aiou yvwfj.r} 6 /uez/ yap ray, Kal yeyovevai Tbv Kvpiov, Sxrirtp ev 

f3\a(Tfp7]/j.e?, avrbv T&V v ibv el^ai \eycav TI T&V UVTOOS yevop.evwv, vo/m.i^ovTas, 

T^V iraTepa, Kal /j.ira\iv oi Se rpe?s TWV deiuv \oyicav yevvrjaiv avrcp TTJV 

Qeovs Tp6rrov Tiva KripVTTovcriv, ets apfj.oTTOva av nal TTpeTrovffav, aAA oi>xl 

Tpets viroaTacreis |eVas dAATjAwr trav- Tr\daiv Tiva Kal TTOL^CTIV irpO(Tfj.apTV- 

TaTratTi K^x (a P i(T ^ vas SiaipovvTts Tyv povvTtav [pp. 231, 232.] 
ayiav yuoi/aSa. riv&ffOai yap avdyKij TCf, h y8Aacr$?7 J uoi ovv ov TC> rvx^v, peyi- 

e$ TUIV oXwv Tbv Qtlov \6yoV e ^ Ao- ffTOV yue*/ ovv, xetpoTronyTO*/ Tpoirov Tiva 

X^pe iv Se T(f e< Kal eV5mtTaa-0at Set \eyeiv riv Kvpiov. [Ibid.] 
TO ayiov -TT^eS/ua* tfSr) Kal TIJV 6dav 

304 Dionysius of Alexandria. 

ON THE is therefore a blasphemy, and no ordinary one, but rather the 
STANTIA- greatest, to say that the Lord is in any way a handy-work/ 
LITY OF Finally, after several statements which are well worthy of 


1-3921 being read, Dionysius concludes thus h ; <( Neither therefore 
i KarafJifp i_ ought we to break up 1 the wonderful and divine Unity 2 into 
feu/. three Godheads, nor to limit 3 the dignity and exceeding 

2^Sa. majesty of the Lord by saying that He is created 4 ; but we 
4 Troriafi ou ght to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ 
Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost ; and that the Word is 
One 5 with the God of all. For I/ says He, and the Father 
are One and, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. 
For in this way both the Divine Trinity, and the holy doc- 
trine 6 of the Monarchy, will be preserved." Who at any 
time, even after the council of Nice, has written any thing 
better against the Arian or other heretical opinions touching 
the Trinity ? But of the faith of this Dionysius of Rome, we 
shall say more in treating of Dionysius of Alexandria, to the 
elucidation of whose views I now proceed. 

DIONYSIUS 2. Dionysius 1 , Bishop of Alexandria, whom Eusebius, Ba 
sil 11 , and others call the Great, was, as we have already in 
timated, both the namesake and the contemporary of Dio 
nysius of Rome ; and the histories of both, so far as concerns 
the subject of which we are treating, are so mutually inter- 
[393] woven, that one cannot be related fully without the other. 
Of this Dionysius, however, the Arians of old time used won 
derfully to boast, as if he were their own ; and not without 
cause indeed, if we are to believe the modern Arian, Sandius, 
though in reality most unreasonably. But let us first hear 
what Sandius * has written of him : " He taught," says he, 
" that the Son of God is a created being, and made ; not in 
nature one with, but a stranger and alien, in respect of sub 
stance, to the Father, just as the husbandman is in relation 
to the vine, or the shipwright in relation to the ship ; for, 

h OUT ovv Kara^pi^iv xp^l els rpeTs Z/ULOI. OVTCD yap tiv Kal % Oeia rpias Kal 

Oeor-rjras rrjv Qo.vjj.a.ffr^v Kal 0iav /j.o- rb ayiov K-fjpvy/u.a rys p-ovapx^s Sia<T(a~ 

fdSa, ovre iroi-fi<rei KCD\VLV rb a^iwfjia OLTO __ [Ibid., p. 232.] 
Kal rb i>TTfpftd\\ov peyedos rov Kvpiov Made bishop about the year 232. 

dAAa TreTTicrreu/ceVat els fbv Tlarepa Cave. BOWYEK. 

TravroKpdropa, Kal ets Xpiarbv Irjaovv k Eusebins, H. E., lib. vii., at the 

rbi> ulbv avruv, Kal fls rb ayiov Tri/eD/acr very beginning; Basil. Epist. Canon. 

ijvuxrBai Se r<p Qecp rwv obuv rbv \6yov ad Amphiloch. [Ep. 188, vol. iii. p. 

Eyw yap, (prjal, Kal 6 Tlarrjp eV ea^ef 269.] 
Kal, Eyh eV ry Tlarpl, Kal 6 Uar^p fr l Enucl. Hist. Eccl., 1. i. p. 122. 

Charged with Arianizing, by moderns. 305 

he says, existing as a creature 1 , He was not before He was BOOK n. 
made 2 ." That you may understand, however, from what ^II^ 1 
masters Sandius learned this, he shortly afterwards adds : DloNy _ 
"Huet (Origeniana ii. 2. q. 2. 10, 25) says that Diony- SIUSALEX. 
sius of Alexandria gave utterance to unworthy and insuffer- gJgatuTa 
able sentiments respecting the Trinity ; for that he said that existeus. 
the Son is a work (7row?//,a) of the Father, that is, a creature, 
and made, and unlike Him, and alien from the Father as to fieret. 
substance, as is the husbandman in relation to the vine ; and, 
forasmuch as He is a creature, He existed not before He was 
made ; and that he also uttered expressions little suited to 3 3 parum 
the Spirit. And in chapter iii. 6, he states that he was entes? 1 " 
the author of erroneous and absurd notions respecting the 
Trinity. Accordingly Dionysius Petavius not without rea 
son 4 classes this his namesake also among those who pro- 4 non te- 
pounded the same doctrine as Arius before his time." At m 
last, he thus concludes : " It was not without ground 5 , then, 5 non im- 
that the Arians, in the very presence of Athanasius, boasted m 
of Dionysius s agreeing with them." These are the state 
ments of Sandius. 

3. We, however, on the contrary, hesitate not to assert 
that the Arians appealed to the views of Dionysius, not only 
without grounds 6 and falsely, but also most unwisely, and 6 temere. 
to the ruin of their cause ; nay, further, we contend that 
scarcely any thing occurs in the ecclesiastical history of the 
events which preceded the council of Nice, which makes [394] 
more against the Arians than the history of this very Dio 
nysius, if faithfully told. Of that history, therefore, we will 
give a true and succinct relation. When the Sabellian heresy 
was daily spreading more and more in Egypt and Pentapolis, 
whence it had its origin, Dionysius, who was bishop of Alex 
andria at the time, in writing an epistle against it addressed 
to Ammonius and Euphranor, in his anxiety to distinguish 
with extreme accuracy 7 the Persons [of the Godhead,] ap- 7 accura- 
peared to lean to the other extreme ; that is to say, not tr 
merely to distinguish the Divine Persons, by attributing to 
Each His own property, but also to divide Each from the 
Other in substance, and thus to deny that the Son was of 
one substance 8 with the Father. Hereupon, some of the 
people of Pentapolis accused him of treason against the 


306 His own vindication of his orthodoxy ; shewing that, 

2 sartam 



faith ] , before the bishop of Rome, who also at that time was 
called by the same name, Dionysius. A synod of bishops 
having been convened at Rome in this cause, the bishop of 
Alexandria was requested by them to make a declaration 
of his views. He accordingly wrote an apology to the afore 
mentioned bishop of Rome, in which he defended himself 
from the calumnies which had been brought against him, 
and in so doing admirably preserved unimpaired 2 the ca 
tholic doctrine respecting the consubstantiality, and satisfied 
the bishop of Rome in all points. St. Athanasius, who was 
afterwards bishop of the same church of Alexandria, attests 
the truth of this, both in his Commentaiy on the councils 
of Ariminum and Seleucia, and especially in the treatise 
which he wrote professedly in opposition to the Arians, who 
used to boast that Dionysius had long before professed 
the same opinions as themselves. In refuting them, Atha 
nasius informs us, that Dionysius held right views in all 
points respecting the catholic faith, and that what he had 
stated ambiguously in any part of his epistle to Ammonius 
and Euphranor, the same he had more clearly explained 
both in that epistle itself, and afterwards in some other 
writings of his, and especially in those, which he addressed to 
his namesake, the bishop of Rome, which, as Eusebius and 
Jerome testify, were contained in four books. Persons, how 
ever, who were not aware of these facts, and who had not 
read what had been written by Athanasius in defence of Dio 
nysius, did not hesitate, even after this, to accuse Dionysius 
of furnishing weapons to the Arians ; for instance, Basil and 
Gennadius of Marseilles ; although Basil 1 ", having afterwards 
learnt the facts of the case, as it would seem, made honour 
able mention of him as an orthodox man. Ruffinus 11 of Aqui- 
leia, however, was deceived in supposing that the writings 
of Dionysius had been tampered with and corrupted by the 
Arians. For Athanasius, in defending him, alleges no plea 
of this kind : on the contrary, he intimates that these writ 
ings had remained entire and uncorrupted, even as he had 
written them, so as to exhibit clearly that their author s 

sil. ad Amphiloch. de Spirit. S. n Ruffin. Apolog. pro Origene. [Sive 

c. 29. [ 72. vol. iii. p. (iO.] De Adult, lib. Orig., p. 50.] 

(i.) He did not hold the errors imputed to him. 307 

opinions were correct. Such is pretty nearly the history as BOOK n. 
given to us in brief, by Baronius. 3/4. 

4. Now in this history, two points particularly call for our DIONY- 
observation. First, it is clear from this that Dionysius of SI 
Alexandria never really wrote what was objected against him 
by his accusers of Pentapolis, namely, that the Son of God, in 
that He is properly 1 the Son of God, is a creature or work : * proprie. 
and that at no time did he not 2 acknowledge the same Son 2 nunquam 
of God to be of one substance and nature 3 with the Father. " on> t 
Athanasius proves this, first, from the very title of the work 
which this Dionysius addressed to Dionysius of Rome. The 
words of Athanasius are as follows ; " First, then, he entitled 
his epistle, Of Refutation and Defence 4 . And what is this, but 4 
that he refutes his slanderers, and defends himself respect- 
ing what he had written ? shewing that he had not himself logy). 
written with the meaning that Arius has supposed ; but that, 
when he mentioned what was spoken of the Lord in reference [396] 
to His human nature, he was not ignorant, that He was the 
inseparable Word and Wisdom of the Father." And indeed, 
if Dionysius had ever really held the views which his accusers 
of Pentapolis objected against him, he would not, (being, as 
he was, a man of remarkable piety,) have designated his re 
ply to the charges made against him a Refutation and De 
fence 5 , but rather a Confession or a Retractation 6 . For it is 5 apologia, 
certain from his Apology itself, that Dionysius did not in a ^^ mo " 
barefaced way 7 defend the blasphemies laid to his charge; 7 yv ^ 
nor if he had done so, would he ever have cleared himself K ^ aX P 
to the satisfaction of Dionysius of Rome, who, as we have 
already shewn, was a man especially orthodox on the article 
of the Holy Trinity. Athanasius next proves the same 
from the circumstance, that Dionysius himself openly com 
plained in his Apology, that his adversaries had not quoted 
his words fairly, but had maimed and mutilated them, and 
had framed from them, in this their maimed and mutilated 
form, certain heretical propositions to lay to his charge. 

\v ovv EAeyxov Kal ATTO- <re v, eypatyev avTbs, aA\* #TJ Tt 

hoyias eypatyev [leg. fircypdtyei/, inscrip- irij/as elpT)[j.ev<iw irepl TOV Kvpiov /J.vr}- 

sit, Bull.] eauToG T^J/ eTritrroATj^. TOUTO (T0el$ ow/c ijyv6ei TOVTOV sivai. \6yov Kal 

Se TI effTiv, TI OTL TOVS ^euSo/ueVous o~o(f>iav ao iaipeTov TOV TlaTpos. Atha- 

eAey^et, irepl 8e wi/ eypatyv, airoXoye?- nasius, de sententia Dionysii Alex., 

TCU ; Setwi/us, Sri /u^, ws Ape?os virsv6ri- torn. i. p, 559. [ 14. vol. i. p. 253.] 

308 Garbled extracts quoted from his writings. 

ON THE The words of Athanasius, immediately following those which 


STANTIA- we have adduced, are express: "In the next place," says 
Athanasius P, "he charges his accusers as not adducing his 
statements entire, but mutilating them ; and as speaking not 
with a good, but an evil conscience, just as they choose ; and 
he compares them to such as bring calumnious charges 
against the Epistles of the blessed Apostle : now a complaint 
such as this on his part sets him entirely free from evil 1 sus- 
[397] picion." Athanasius lastly shews, point by point, that Dio- 

2 a7roAo7ia. nysius had, in his Defence 2 , replied to each several objection 
brought against him, and had proved himself catholic in all : 
this, I repeat, Athanasius clearly shews by adducing the 
express words of Dionysius themselves : I cannot, therefore, 
sufficiently express my surprise at those learned and ortho 
dox men, who do not cease, even at the present day, to fix 
the slanderous charge of Arianism on that immortal ornament 
of the Alexandrian Church. 

5. To lay the subject more clearly before the reader, we 
will here note out of the charges brought against Dionysius 
one or two of the principal, upon which the others depend. 
His accusers complained that Dionysius, in mentioning the 
Father, did not at the same time mention the Son, and on the 
other hand, on occasion of mentioning the Son, was silent as 
to the name of the Father ; inferring from this that he sepa- 

3 elongasse. rated, widely removed 3 , and divided the Son from the Father. 

144 To this the excellent prelate, as quoted by Athanasius q , makes 

this reply; " Of the names which were mentioned by me, each 

4 rov ir\ri- i s inseparable and indivisible from the other 4 . I mentioned 
the Father, [but] even before I introduced [the name of] 
the Son, I implied 5 Him also in the Father : I introduced 
the Son, [and] even if I had not previously mentioned the 
Father, He would most certainly have been implied by aiiti- 
cipation 6 in the Son. I added the Holy Ghost, but at the 
same time 7 I associated both Him from whom 8 and Him 


7 j. 

P TTira airiarai rovs /careiTrtWas Arjs vno^ias avrbi/ airoXvei. [Ibid.] 
avrov, &s (A^ 6\OK\ripovs Xeyovras, aAAd q ru>v vif e,uoG \^dei/ruv 

TreputdTrroi/ras avrov ras AeeiS Kal us fKacrrov a%cfy>i(TT(fo/ <TTI Knl 

fj.7] Ka\fj (Tweidriffei, aAAa Trovrjpa Aa- rov Tr\r)<riov. Tlarepa ^TTOV, /cat 

AoGi Tav us 6e\ov(ri TOVTOVS Se TOVTOIS eTrcrya yco Tbv vluv, eff fj/ a, KCU TOVTOV 

a7rei/caet, rois ras rov /JLUKapiov DITTO- eV r$ Tlarpi vlov eir^yayov, et Kal /x^ 

<rr6\ov Sta^aAAoutri^ tiriffroXa.s. ri Se TrpoeLpT]Kiv rbv Ilarepa, TtavTcas av eV 

roiavTT] /j.f/j.\l/LS avrov ira,vr<as airb (pav- rep viy TrpoeiArjirro. ayiov irvv/j.a irpo- 

His own account of his statements, and meaning. 309 

through whom 1 He came. But these know not that neither BOOK H. 
is the Father, in that He is Father, separated 2 from the Son, ^II 
for the name is calculated to introduce [the idea of] the DIONY- 
union 3 : neither is the Son removed from the Father, f or SIUSALEX. 
the designation Father manifests the communion ; and in 2 , m rLV s 
Their hands is the Spirit, which is not capable of being 

severed 4 either from Him that sends, or Him that conveys 
Him. How then could I, who use these names, believe 
that they are parted and wholly severed from each other?" 4 
After a short interval he sums up all this in a few words, by [398] 
saying, as Athanasius states 1 , "That the Trinity is gathered 
up into a Unity 5 without being divided or diminished." 

6. His adversaries further urged against Dionysius, that 
he taught that the Son of God is alien from the substance of 
the Father; and that the relation of the Father to the Son 
is like that of the husbandman to the vine, or of a ship 
builder to a vessel. To this the holy man replies in the fol 
lowing words 3 : " But when I had said that some things are 
conceived of as brought into existence 6 and some as made, 6 
of such, as being of less importance, I adduced examples r 
[only] by the way. For I neither said that the plant was ten," Bull.] 
.... to the husbandman, nor the vessel .... to the ship 
wright*. After that I dwelt upon points which are more 
connected with and cognate [to the subject], and I treated 
more fully of what were more real 7 [scil. less metaphorical], [399] 
having brought out various additional proofs, which I also com- 
municated to you in another epistle, in which 8 I also shewed 
that the charge which they bring against me, is a falsehood, 
that I deny that Christ is of one substance 9 with God : for 

trefoj/ca aAA a/j.a Kal TroOev, Kal 5ia iraXiv a/uLficoTov els T^\V /novaSa ffuyKe- 

T IVOS 3\Kev, e^p/jLoffa. ot Se OVK "uraffiv ^aXaiov^eQa. See Grabe s annotations 

6"TL ^njre a.Trr)\\OTpictiTat HaT^ip vtov, ^ in the appendix.] 

norrri/r TrpoKaTapKTiKov yap ecrri TTJS s irXfy eyci> yevyTa Tiva Kal iroif]ra 

<rvi/a<pzias rb ovofj.a ovTe vlbs aircpKtcrTai riva </>rj<ras yoeurflcu, r<av fj.ev Toiovrcav 

TOV Uarpos T] yap Tla-r^p irpoa-rjyopia us axptiOTepwv e eTrtSpo^tTjs tl-jrov irapa- 

S7]Ao? TTJI/ KOivuviav. ev re TO?S xeporlv SeiyfjLara. eirel fA.-f]Te rb (pvrbf e^rjz/ r<f 

avT&v eVrt rb iri>ev(j.a, /j.r]re TOV ire/j.irov- yewpycp, /t^re T vavTrriyaJ rb aK<i<pos 

TOS, /j.7]re TOV (ftepovTos SwdjuLfvov o-Te- [Deesse hie quidpiam monet editor 

peo Oat. ircos ovv o TOVTOIS xpc^ej/os ro?s Benedict.] e?ra TO"IS LKvov^evois /cat 

ov6fj.a(TL yue^epicrOa: raCra Kal atytopiaOai TrpofftyveffTtpois evSieTpitya, Kal TrAeW 

TravTe\ws aAArjAci;^ oto^ai. Tom. i. p. 5ier)A0oi/ irepl TO>V aX-qQefTTepw, TroiKiAa 

5()1. [ 17. p. 254.] 7rpocT67re|eupcbz/ Te/c/UTjpm 1 airtp Kal crol 

r P. 562. [ 19. p. 256. The words St ^AATjs eVto-roATjs e7pa^a- eV ols 

of Dionysius in Athanasius are ; OVTCO fj\eya Kal l b Trpo(f)epov(nis eyK\r){Jia war 

/xej/ ti/j.e is efs re T^I/ TpidSa TTJV /j.ovdda efj.ov, ^/eGSos bi/, us ov \tyovTos Tbv 

irXaTvi o^if aSiaipeTov, Kal Trjv TpidSa Xpio~Tbv o/j.ooixrioi tlvai T$ 0e<^. el yap 



310 His own explanation of his letter 

ON THE although I say that I have not found nor read this word in 
lANTiV- an y pl ace f tne Holy Scriptures, still my arguments which 
LITY OF immediately follow, of which they make no mention, are 
not at variance with this belief. For I even put forward 1 
as an example, human offspring 2 , as clearly being of one 
2 yovyv. nature (homogeneous 3 ), asserting that parents undoubtedly 4 
&nay*vn* are other than their children only in that they are not them- 


selves the children t \ The letter [itself], indeed, as I said 
5 Siards before, I cannot send, owing to present circumstances 5 ; had 
trewTob i* been otherwise, I would have sent you the very words 
casustem- I then used, or rather a copy of the whole letter; which, if 
6 eu7ro crco -^ sna ^ have the means 6 , I will [still] do. I know however 

7 rS>v o-vy- and recollect, that I added several parallels of things cognate 7 ; 

for I said that a plant, which has come up from a seed or a 
root, is different from that from which it sprang, and is [at 

8 of like the same time] altogether of the same nature 8 with it v : and 
Bp^Bull *kat a river which flows from a fountain has received another 

form and name ; (for neither is the fountain called a river, 
nor the river a fountain;) yet that they both have a sub- 

9 iWrfnv*!!/. stantive existence 9 ; and that the fountain is as it were the 

father, and the river is the water from the fountain. These 
things, however, and such as these, they [say] that they do 
not see written, but, as it were, pretend to be blind, whilst 

Kal rb ovo/j.a TOVTO (pr)[j,i fify evprjKevai, (rbv) [om. ed. Ben.] Tlarepa e?vai, T OV 

^UTjS dveyi toKevai TTOV rcav ay icav ypa- Se Trorafjibv elvai rb e /c rfjs Trrjyrjs vdcap. 

^>u>v, aAAcfye TO. eTri^eip^jaaTd /*ow TO, aAAa Tavra /J.GV Kal TO, TOiavta yurjSe 

|T}S, a (recrtcoTrrj/cacn, TTJS Siavoias rav- opav, aAA 5 otovel Tf^Acor- 

TTJS OVK cbraSei. Kal yap (/cat) [om. ed. re?// iiroKpivovTai Tols Se Swat pTj/uartOis 

Ben.] avQpwn t.iav yovfyv irapeOe/j. rjv, 877- acrvvGeTois, Ka9direp \idois, fj,aKp6dei^ 

\ov us ovffav 6/J.oyevrj (p-fiffas TrdvT&s Tn^eipov(ri /ue jSaAAei^. Apud Atha- 

rovs yovels povov erepovs elvai TWV re /c- nasium, torn. i. p. 561. [ 18. p. 255.] 
v(v, on /xf) avrol e?e^ TO. re /cva. Kal T^V * [The Benedictine editor intimates 

/j.ev eTncrroArVj ws Trpoeiirov, Sid rds that there is something wanting here. 

TrepiffTacreis OVK e ^co TrpoKOfj.icrcn. el 8 B.] 

oi>v, avrd <roi TO, r6re prj/j-ara, fj.d\\ov n [The following clause is omitted 

Se /cat TracTTjs "av eire/ji^a rb avTiypafyov. by Bp. Bull, 7) /UTjre 70^6?$ avaynalov 

onep ki> evTroprjaca, TroL-f](TCD. ofSa Se ital inrdp^eiv elvai /XTjre re /cj/a. " Other- 

(j.<l/j.vr][j,ai Tr\eiova irpoffQels TCOV ffvyye- wise, it must needs follow, that there 

vu>v 6/ a. Kal yap Kal (pvTbv elirov, are neither parents nor children." See 

dirb a"rrep/j.aTos T) d-jrb pL^rjs dve\6bv, Grabe s annotations on this passage. 

erepou eivai TOV, odev e^\dar /](re, Kal B.] 

irdvTcas eKeivo [eKeivia ed. Ben.] KaOe- v [Read fKeivcp, (see Grabe s anno- 

aTT]Kev 6/u.oio<pves [o/mocpves ed. Ben.] tations,) and presently 6/j.o(pves. B. 

Kal curb ir^yris peovTa. erepov These corrections, which are the read- 

o~xri/ii.a Kal ovo^a /j,eTi\r)(t)evai /j.-f)Te ings of the Bened. edition, are followed 

yap TT> -jrriy^v jroTa/, /XTJTC rbi> TTOTO.- in the translation : Bp. Bull read o^tot- 

fjibv irtiyriv \eyeo~6ai Kal dfj-fporepa (pves, simi/is natures : this is noticed in 

Kal T)\V fj.ev Trrjyr/i/, oto^et the margin.] 

allows and implies the Consubstantiality. 311 

with the two little words apart from the context 1 , as with BOOK n. 
stones, they try to strike me from a distance." Thus Dio- g. 
nysius ; and what can be clearer than this defence ? For as DIONY- 
it appears, this great man, in the epistle at which his adver- J 1 
saries carped, had endeavoured to illustrate the distinction 
between the Father and the Son, in opposition to the Sa- 145 
bellians, by various similes : some of which related only to 
the human nature of Christ, created by the Father; as that [401] 
of the husbandman in relation to the vine, or that of the 
shipwright to the vessel ; whilst others were adapted also to 
the Divine nature of the Saviour, received by eternal gene 
ration from the Father. On examples of the first kind, 
as less apt, he had touched but lightly and by the way; 
whilst on the latter, as being most suitable and applicable, 
he had dwelt a longer time. Amongst these were several, 
which eminently confirmed in reality the Consubstantiality 
of the Son, although Dionysius allows that he had not in 
this place used the term. For he had even adduced as an 
example human birth, and subjoined these express words; 
" Parents undoubtedly are other than their children only in 
this, that they are not themselves their children." By this 
example both the communion of nature, which subsists be 
tween the Father and the Son, and also the distinction of Per 
sons, is manifestly declared. He had added, that the plant 
which grows up from a seed or a root, is other than 2 that 2 aliud ab. 
from which it springs, and still is of a nature altogether the 
same with it ; and many other examples of that sort. But 
the sophists, suppressing the mention of all this, seized a 
handle for falsely accusing 3 him, from two little words only, 3 caiumni- 
which they themselves had put in a wrong connection 4 , and 4 
drawn to a sense, other than that which Dionysius intended, composite. 
But why, you will say, did Dionysius employ at all those 
examples, which are less suitable, and apply only to the 
human nature of Christ ? The great Athanasius gives an 
excellent reason x ; "Arid this form 5 [of reasoning] " he says, 5 TWOS. 
"is in truth persuasive in overthrowing the madness of Sa- [402] 
bellius, so that he, who wishes by a short method to convict 
such men, should not begin from the passages which indi- 

x [leal eWii/ a\ir)da>s TVTTOS ovros TTI- /j.avias, w<rre T&Z/ /3ov\6jJ.fvov 
Qavbs ?rpbs o.vaTpoirY]v TTJS Sa/SeAAt ou 5ifAe / 7xeti TOVS TOIOVTOVS, /UTJ cnro TU>V 

312 His course of argument most effective against Sabellianism. 

ON THE cate the divinity of the Word ; that the Son, for instance, is 
vtlmL- Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and that I and the Father 
LITY OF are one; lest they, perversely interpreting what is correctly 

THE SON. * 1 i i i i i 

- said, should make such statements an occasion for their 
shameless contentiousness, when they hear [the words], 
I and the Father are one/ and He that hath seen Me, 
hath seen the Father: but [one should rather] put for 
ward what has been said of the Saviour in respect of His 
1 rd &I/0/W- human nature 1 , just as he has done: such things, for in- 

TTiZ/CUS 6JD77- 

stance, as His hungering and being wearied, and that He 
is the Vine, and [that] He prayed, and [that] He suffered. 
For in proportion as these things which are said are lowly, 
so much the more is it apparent that it was not the Father 
who became man. For when the Lord is called a Vine, 
there must needs be a Vine-dresser also : when He prays, 
there must be One that hears, and, when He asks, there 
must be One that gives. And these things shew the mad 
ness of the Sabellians much more easily, because He that 
prays is one, He that hears another; and the Vine is one, 
and the Vine-dresser another." As to the objection brought 
against Dionysius by his opponents, that he denied the eter 
nity of the Son, you shall hear the clear reply of the great 
prelate on that point, in our third book, on the Co-eternity 
of the Son. But this being the case, certain learned men 
of the present day need to be seriously reminded, that they 
imitate not the ways of the false accusers of old time, nor 
henceforth, suppressing the mention of the very many catho 
lic statements of Dionysius, continue to cast at a very holy 
man and one who has deserved most highly of the Catholic 
Church, those two little words " the Vine/ and " the Hus 
bandman/ as it were stones, and they too moved out of their 
proper place. 

ffrj^aiv6vrcav rrjv 6e6rr)Ta rov \6yov apireXos, /cat, rjvxero, Kal Tre-rrovQev. off(f 

iroif io Oat rrjv a.px hv 6n \oyos, Kal yap ravra raireiva \zyfrai, roffovrcp 

ffo(j)ia, Kal 5iWyti/s eVrtt/ 6 vl6s Kal on Se iKwrai urj 6 irar))p yfv6^j.evos avQpu- 

6 irarrjp *v fffpev iva ^ ra TTOS. dz/cry/o? yap /cat d,u7reAou \syou.svov 

prj/xeVa Trape^rjyov/j.voi eK6?z/oi, rov Kvpiov, elvcu KCU yecapy6v Kal fi>xo- 

TTJS avaHrxvvTov (f>i\oveiKias jUeVou avrov, e?i/ot rbv e-TraKOvovTa Kal 

iii/, ra roiavra Tropiaoovrai, O.KQVOV- alrovvros avrov, elVat rbv StSovra ra 

res, on eyk Kal 6 irarfyp tv ecr/uef Kal 8e roiavra yuaAA.oi evKoXcaTepov rrjv 

6 ecapaK&s e/ze, fdcpaKe rbv Trarepa aAAa rwv 3,afif\\iavuv pai/iav SeiKvvcrW on 

ra avOpw-rrivus flprjfj.fl/a irepl rov CTCOTTJ- erepos 6 evxofJ.fvos, crepos 6 eiraKOvcuv, 

pos Trpo^aAAetj , ftsirep avrbs iriroit}Kfv Kal a\\os T] ^/xTreAos, /cat a\\os 6 yfwp- 

old sari, rb irsivav, rb Koiriav, Kal on 705.] torn. i. p. 568. [ 26. p. 261.] 

(ii.) The Consubstantiality evidently the received doctrine. 313 

7. I proceed to the other point,, which I think especially BOOKH. 
worthy of observation in the history of this Dionysius. It is 
then, further, an evident conclusion from it, that in the 

Christian Churches in the age of Dionysius, the doctrine SIUsALEX - 

which asserted 1 that the Son of God is of one substance and T senten- 

co-eternal (ofjboova-ios and crvvaibios) with His Father, was gt^tuit" 38 

already commonly received and held, as a certain and catho 

lic [truth] , which it were impious to gainsay. For as soon as [403] 

certain ill-disposed 2 men had falsely spread abroad a calumny 2 malefe- 

against Dionysius, as though he had taught, that the Son is na 

not of one substance with the Father, but created and made, 

and that there was a time when the Son was not, nearly the 

whole Christian world was moved at it ; the complaint was 

carried from the East to the West ; an appeal was made to 

the bishop of Rome, as holding the first seat 3 amongst the 3 cathe- 

prelates; a council was forthwith held upon the matter in 

the diocese of Rome, in which the opinions which were said 

to be held by Dionysius of Alexandria, were condemned, and 

a synodical epistle was written to Dionysius himself, in which 

the fathers enquired of him, whether he had in very deed 

published doctrines of such a kind. This Athanasius himself, 

the defender of Dionysius, explicitly attests, in his treatise 

on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia y , in the following 

words ; " But when certain persons had laid a charge before 

the bishop of Rome against the bishop of Alexandria, as if he 

had asserted that the Son was made 4 , and was not of one sub- 4 ^^0. 

stance with the Father, the council which was convened at 

Rome was deeply moved with indignation, and the bishop of 

Rome expressed the sentiments of them all in a letter to his 

namesake." Hence arose the Refutation and Defence of Dio- 146 

nysius of Alexandria, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, in which 

he easily cleared himself with 5 that wise and very fair-minded 5 apud. 

man. Furthermore, it is a certain conclusion from this his 

tory, (as I have, indeed, already observed elsewhere 2 ,) that 

in the times of this Dionysius, i. e., at least sixty years before 

the council of Nice, the very word ofjuoovaios (of one sub- [404] 

irapa r< w/ni 

rc{} PW/UTJS rbi/ 77js AAelapSpeias ypafysi Trpbs 

US XtyOVTO. TTOl7J/J.a, KO.I /J.^ Tom. 1. p. 918. [ 43. p. 757.] 

6/uLoovmov T))V vlbv TC*> Tlarpl, y i*.ev Kara z Above in chapter 1. of this book. 

>, 6 5e rf)s 8. [p. 65.] 

3 confir- 

314 The word opoovcnos also the received expression of it. 
stance), was ordinarily used, received and approved amongst 

f* it i* 

Catholics, in stating 1 the doctrine of the divinity of the Son. 
For {i was ex P ressl 7 objected to Dionysius, as he himself 
a( ^ mits ; tnat ne did not say that the Son was of one substance 2 
with the Father; and to this objection the excellent man 
. replied, that he had not indeed read the word in the Scrip 
tures, but that, nevertheless, he had not on that account 
shrunk from it ; (indeed, in his epistle against Paul of Samo- 
sata, as has been shewn above 8 , he expressly approves of that 
word as one that was used by catholic fathers who had lived 
before him;) whilst the reality itself, which is represented 
by the word, he had repeatedly and most explicitly affirmed 3 , 
both in his other writings, and in the very epistle from 
which his adversaries had constructed their charges against 

8. Now what does Sandius say b to all this? Hear and 
wonder at the extreme ignorance or impudence of the man, 
whichever it be; "The Apology," he says, "of this Diony- 
sius, which is said to have been written to Dionysius of 
Rome, is in my opinion spurious, and forged by those who 
would have all controversies of the faith to be decided by the 
Roman pontiff, as supreme judge." But who in the world 
ever suspected this before himself? Perhaps, however, this 
unkerneller of ecclesiastical history has his own reasons for 
this judgment, which we, "simple and old-fashioned folk," 
do not as yet apprehend. For he openly gives it out c that he 
had proposed "to write the matters which are, as it were, 
omitted 4 in ecclesiastical history, and which are very different 
W- from the notions of the ordinarily learned 5 ." Well, let us 
vulga- see, whether he has aught to produce worthy of being opposed 
ring" to tne consent of all, not only of those who are " ordinarily 
[405] learned," but of those who rise above the ordinary class. 
"First," he says, "neither Eusebius nor Jerome have men 
tioned this Apology." I reply; granting this to be true, still 
Athanasius has mentioned it, who had the best acquaintance 
with the writings of his own predecessor in the see of Alexan 
dria: and he has so mentioned it as to cite pretty long extracts 
from it in the very words 6 of the original, extracts which he 

a C cha P- i- 8. p. 65.] b De Script. Eccles., p. 42, 43. 

c Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 121. 


The genuineness of the Apology maintained against Sandius. 315 

boldly opposed to the Arians, when they boasted of Diony- BOOK n. 
sins s agreeing in opinion with them. Basil the Great has c f y"J* 
also mentioned it in his treatise on the Holy Spirit, c. 29 d , DloNY _ 
where he likewise produces out of it a remarkable testimony SIUSALEX. 
on the divinity of the Holy Ghost. But further, it is quite 
untrue, that neither Eusebius nor Jerome have mentioned 
this Apology : both have made clear enough mention of it. 
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, vii. 26, in enumerat 
ing the epistles, and treatises in the form of epistles, which 
Diony sius of Alexandria composed against Sabellius,, writes 
thus concerning this Apology 6 : " And he also composed four 
other treatises on the same subject; which he addressed to 
his namesake, Dionysius of Rome." These words of Euse 
bius manifestly designate the books Of Refutation and Apo 
logy, portions of which were brought forward by Athanasius. 
For all points coincide, whether you regard the form, the 
argument, the title, or the division of the books. The form 
of both was the same, namely, the epistolary. The work 
which Eusebius mentions, was written upon the Sabelliaii 
controversy ; and the work Of Refutation and Apology, cited 
by Athanasius and Basil, treated of the same argument. 
Both were alike addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome. 
The epistolary work, which Eusebius mentions, was divided [406] 
into different portions 1 ; so was the apologetic epistle men- * volumina. 
tioned by Athanasius. The epistle of which Eusebius speaks, 
consisted, as he himself testifies, of four parts in all ; whilst 
Athanasius brought forward testimonies out of the first, 
second, and third books, by name, of the Apology of Diony 
sius. See the annotations of the very learned Valesius on this 
passage of Eusebius. And as for Jerome, he also expressly 
mentions this quadripartite epistle, in his Catalogue of Eccle 
siastical Writers, under Dionysius of Alexandria, in these 
words f , c There are also four books of his addressed to 
Dionysius, bishop of Rome." 

9. Sandius second argument is to this effect ; " It is evi 
dent," he says, " from the Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History 
of Eusebius, that Dionysius of Alexandria had died at a very 

d Tom. ii. p. 358. [vol. iii. p. 60.] irposQwvet [H. E. vii. 26.] 

e ffwroLTTei 8e Trepi TTJS OVTTJS viro6f- f Ejus [sunt] . . . et quatuor libri ad 

ffeus Kal #AAa TeVcrapa inryypcS/xuaTa Dionysium Romans urbis episcopum. 

& T<j5 Kara. PaytT/i/ 6fji.oav6fji.ff> AtovuffUf [vol. ii. p. 897-8.] 

316 Sandius argues from a known chronological error 

coxlvv ac * vance( * a g e ; an ^ his successor Maximus had been appointed, 
STANTIA- (A.D. 268,) before Dionysius became bishop of Rome, (A.D. 
269 0" An argument, indeed, worthy of such an unkerneller 
of ecclesiastical history ; seeing that all, who possess even a 
moderate acquaintance with this branch of learning, know that 
in this place Eusebius made a gross mistake in his chrono 
logy. The source of his error was, that he was ignorant of 
the number of years of the pontificate of Xystus, who was the 
predecessor of Dionysius of Rome ; since he states that he 
presided over the Roman Church eleven years, whereas it is 
certain that Xystus did not govern that Church for the whole 
of three years. On this gross mistake of Eusebius the excel 
lent Valesius writes thus*?; "Eusebius/ he says, "is here 
grievously mistaken ; for Xystus did not rule the Church of 
Rome eleven years, but only two years and eleven months, 
[407] as is stated in the book upon the Roman pontiffs, which was 
first published by Cuspinian h . In that book the years of 
the popes of Rome, from Pope Callixtus to the pontificate of 
Liberius, are very well arranged. And of Xystus it states 
thus : Xystus two years, eleven months, and six days. He 
began from the consulate of Maximus and Glabrio and con 
tinued to that of Tuscus and Bassus, and suffered on the 
eighth day before the ides of August. Cyprian, who him 
self suffered martyrdom under the same consuls, but in the 
following month, gives the same testimony in his epistle to 
Successus. Eusebius, however, says nothing of the martyr 
dom of Xystus, either in his Chronicle or in his Ecclesiastical 
History, which greatly astonishes me, though I should be 
much more astonished, did I not know that Eusebius was 
rather careless respecting what was transacted in the West. 
Besides, in his Chronicle, he states that Xystus occupied the 
see eight years, though here he assigns eleven years to him. 
He also makes Dionysius succeed Xystus as Pope in the 
twelfth year of Gallienus, whilst he says that Maximus suc 
ceeded Dionysius of Alexandria, in the eleventh year of the 
same emperor; which is most absurd, since it is certain that 
Dionysius of Alexandria addressed four books against Sabel- 

_ g In his notes on Eusebius Eccl. ficurn Romanorum, ap. Cuspiniani de 
History, vii. 27. Consulibus Romanorum Commeiita- 

h [Pseudo-Damasi Catalogus Ponti- rios, p. 385. ed. Francof. 1601.] 

of EuseUus. Further indications of his ignorance. 317 
lius to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, as Eusebius states above, BOOK n. 


c. 26." 9, 10. 

10. The third and last cavil of Sandius remains to be dis- DIONY- 

posed of by us, in a few words; "This Apology/ he says, 
" is at variance with the sentiments of Dionysius of Alexan 
dria, and agrees with the heresy of Paul of Samosata, of 
which we shall treat in Book I. of our Ecclesiastical History." 
But first, from what does he prove that this Apology is, as he 
says, at variance with the sentiments of Dionysius of Alexan 
dria? Dionysius, forsooth, [as he says], taught that the Son 
of God, even in that He is properly the Son of God, is a crea 
ture and made, &c., which doctrines the author of the Apo 
logy professedly impugns. This, however, is begging the ques 
tion 1 . For we assert, that Dionysius never in reality taught [408] 
such things, but that they were calumniously fastened on this \ T ^ eV 
good man by his adversaries ; and of this assertion of ours we ^e^. 
give solid proofs from the Apology itself, which, as is clear 
from the surest evidence, is the genuine work of Dionysius. 
With these calumnies the Apology is, indeed, at variance; 
but if it had not been at variance with them, it ought by no 
means to have been entitled a Refutation and an Apology. 
Secondly, who is not thoroughly astonished at what Sandius 
affirms, that the sentiments, I mean, of the author of the 
Apology agree with the heresy of Paul of Samosata? For 
throughout that Apology, the divinity of the Word or Son of 
God, which Paul of Samosata denied, is clearly asserted. But 
Sandius perhaps meant, that the author of the Apology was 
a thorough Sabellian : and that Sabellius and Paul of Samo 
sata were of one opinion 2 on the article respecting the Son of 2 
God ; as he eagerly maintains in the first book of his Eccle 
siastical History Unkernelled, under [the head of] Paul of 
Samosata. But suppose we allow to this trifler, that the 
heresy of Sabellius and of Paul of Samosata was the same, or 
at least came to the same thing ; still, whence and by what 
argument, I ask, will he prove, that the author of the Apo 
logy agreed with the heresy of Sabellius. Certainly Eusebius, 
Athanasius, and others attest that that Apology was written 
especially against the Sabellian heresy : nay, Athanasius says 

i Page 114. 



318 Dionysius was opposing Sabellianism. 

ON THE that in that work Dionysius overthrows Sabellius (2a8e\- 

- , / \ T I T 

MOV avarpeTreiv). Besides, we have already cited out of the 
f ra g ments f tne Apology, which are extant in Athanasius, 
- statements diametrically opposed to the Sabellian heresy. 
Of this kind, I say nothing of the rest, lest I should weary 
the reader with tedious repetition, is his illustration of the 
distinction between God the Father and the Son by a simile 
derived from a human birth, with this remark subjoined; 
[409] "That parents are other than their children only in this, 
that they are not themselves their children." What man in 
his sober senses would say that these are the words of one 
who agrees with Sabellius, or even with Paul of Samosata ? 
I think it probable, however, that Saiidius had never read 
through those fragments of the Apology, which are extant in 
Athanasius; but had heard from others, that the consub- 
stantiality of the Son was maintained in that work, and 
thence had inferred that the writer was a thorough Sabellian. 
Perhaps this conjecture of mine will, at first sight, appear 
strange to the sound-minded reader, who has not yet seen 
Sandii the cento of Sandius 1 ; but it is plain 2 that this author does 
evervw h ere in his book regard it as a certain and settled 
point, that the doctrine of the Homousians, as he calls them, 
148 and of the Sabellians, was entirely the same respecting the 
Son of God ; than which nothing is farther from the truth, 
inasmuch as we have already clearly shewn that no one who 
holds the same views as Sabellius J, can say that the Son of 
God is of one substance with the Father, except in a most 
absurd and improper sense. So much respecting the Apology 
of Dionysius of Alexandria. 

11. Besides this, the same Dionysius, a short time before 
his death, at the request of the fathers who were assembled 
at Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata, wrote a remark 
able epistle against this same Paul, which is extant at this 
day k . In it the divine soul, on the point of departing hence 
to God, discourses on the true divinity of the Lord Jesus in 
a manner altogether divine. There are very many passages 
3 delibabi- which bear on this subject; but we will only extract 3 a few. 
He there expressly calls Christ " uncreated and Creator 1 ;" 

J ii. 1. 9, towards the end. [p. 70.] 

* Bibl. Patr., torn. ii. [Op., p. 203, &c.] p. 266. [p. 212.] 

Letter of Dionysius ayainst Paul of Samosata. 319 

Kal SrjfAiovpybv ;) and a little after, " Him who is BOOK n. 
Lord by nature, and the Word of the Father, through whom "01^2. 
the Father made all things, and who is said by the holy DIONY- 
fathers to be of one substance with the Father." Afterwards SIUS ALEX - 
we read these words"; "Christ is unchangeable, as being "- 
God the Word." And one page after, Christ is designated 
by him , " He who is God over all, our refuge." Parallel to 
this is what we read in the next page respecting our Saviour p ; 
" He who is God over all, the Lord God of Israel, Jesus the 
Christ." What is to be said of the fact, that Dionysius ex 
plicitly acknowledges the entire Trinity of one substance ? 
in his replies to the questions <* of Paul of Samosata, Reply 
to Quest. IV., he says ; "Christ the Word is of one nature 1 l (>^oMs. 
with the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove ; and the Spirit 
is of one nature with the Father." This I observe in oppo 
sition to those, who think that Dionysius entertained wrong 
views, at least, respecting the Holy Ghost. But in the same 
place he also makes these excellent statements respecting 
the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost alike r ; 
"For Jesus," he says, "the Word before the worlds, is God 
of Israel; as is likewise the Holy Ghost." Again in the 
same tract 2 he thus speaks concerning the Holy Ghost s ; 2 opusculo. 
"For he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, who is 
loving unto man 3 , shall not go unpunished, and God is a 3 rov </><- 

o -J.4W XavSpuirov 


12. What on the other hand does Sandius say to this? [411] 
he once more lays aside all shame 5 and audaciously rejects 4 Spiritus 

est Deus. 

5 frontem 

m rov <j>v<ri Kvpiov, Kal \6yov rov s [The Greek words as given by perfricat. 

Tlarpbs, 8t ou TO. irdvra eVoiTjo-ev 6 ria- Bp. Bull are ; ov yap a6$os a7reAeu(Te- 

TT/p, al ofjLoovffiov T< Tlarpl etprjiueVov rat ft\a<T({>r}/uLcav Kara rov <pi\a.vQp(!)irov 

virb riav ayiuv Trarcpuv. p. 267. [p. TIvev/j.aros rov ajiov ITi/eS/io 5e 6 0eJs : 

214.] on which Dr. Burton observes; " In p. 

11 ava\\oic0ros yap o Xpurrbs, ws 245 we read OVK aQcf&ffti, 07j<r), /3AdV- 

0ebs A. 6yos. p. 288. [p. 242.] ty^ov airb ^etAewi avrov rb <pi\a.vQp(a- 

> 6 &>u CTT! irdvTuv tbs, i) KaraQvy)) irov Hvev/j.a ciAA. erd^fi KapSias Kal 

flfji.)v. p. 289. [p. 246.] j/e</>poi/s, on Kal ra fidOy rov ecu, s 

p 6 &v 67ri ircLvrdW ebs, Kvpios 6 eos, rb Tlvtv/j.a firiararat, ("him, who 

ebs Iffpafa, Ifiaovs 6 XpLffr6s. p. blasphemes with his lips the Spirit that 

290. [p. 248.] is loving unto man, He says, He will 

q ^oeiS^s eV rep eYSei TTJS Treptffrepas not let go unpunished : but He search- 

6 Xpiarbs \6yos rip Tlvevfj-ari r$ ayiy eth the hearts and reins, for the Spirit, 

6/j.oeiSes r$ Tlarpl rb Uvfvp.a. p. 284. as God, knoweth the deep things 

[p. 232.] of God.") which, if I am not mis- 

r eb? yap lo-par/A ^l^ffovs <5 Trpb taken, Bp. Bull thus altered through 

ai&vtav \6yos, &s Kal rb dytov ITi/eG/xa. fault of memory.] 
[Resp. ad Qusest. vi. p. 244.] 

320 Historical evidence that Dionysius wrote such a letter. 

ON THE this epistle also, which bears the name of Dionysius, as 
OTANTIA- spurio-us. " There is also circulated," he says 1 , " under the 
LITY OF name of Dionysius of Alexandria an epistle against Paul of 
Samosata, but it is supposititious." Now who can, without 
1 homun- impatience, endure the shamelessness of this poor creature 1 , 
who thus pronounces his decretory sentence on the writings 
of the holy fathers, out of his own brain and according to his 
own pleasure, in contempt of the judgment, trustworthiness, 
and authority of all writers who have gone before him. At 
any rate Eusebius mentions, in express terms, this epistle of 
Dionysius of Alexandria, written to the Church of Antioch 
against Paul of Samosata, (Hist. Eccles. vii. 27 U ) : " Diony 
sius, bishop of Alexandria," he says, " having been invited 
to attend the council, declined to be present, alleging in ex 
cuse alike his old age and his bodily infirmity, setting before 
them, [however,] in a letter, the opinion which he held on 
the question under consideration." The same epistle is men 
tioned by the fathers of Antioch themselves in their synodical 
epistle, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vii. 30 v . "At the same time 
we sent letters," they say, " and exhorted many even of the 
distant bishops, to come for the remedying 2 of the pestilential 
teaching : for instance, to Dionysius the bishop of Alexan 
dria, and toFirmilian of Cappadocia, both of blessed memory: 
of whom the former sent an epistle to Antioch, not consi 
dering the leader of the heresy worthy even of salutation, nor 
[412] writing to him in person, but to the whole diocese 3 , of which 
3 irapoiKia. epistle we have also subjoined the copy." Lastly, Jerome, 
149 (not to speak of others,) makes mention of this epistle, in his 
Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, under Dionysius of Alex 
andria y ; " There is also circulated," he says, fe a notable 
epistle of his against Paul of Samosata, [written] a few days 

* De Script. Eccles., p. 42. eirl rys A 

11 6 fjikv /car AAec/5pemv Aiovvffios, rov aTrb rrjs KairiraSoKias, rovs 

TrapaK\.T)6ls us kv eirl rr)v <rvv6?>ov atyi- ras &v 6 u.\v eTreVreiAej fls rr\v 3 J 

Kotro, yr]pas 6/ut.ov Kal acrOeveiav rov crw- ^(iav, rbv r]ye/j.6va TTJS ir\dvir]s ovSe 

/j.aros airia(rdfj.evos, avariQerai. ryv TT- irposp^crews d|/c6cras, oi5e Trpbs irp6(r<a- 

povaiav,5i eiriffro\risr7)v avrov yvca/jL-riv, irov ypdtyas avry, aAAo rfj irapoiKia 

TIV e%oi irepl rov rjrov/,Trapa(rr-f]- Trdap ^s Kal rb avr iypatpov virerd^a/uLev. 

<ras. [E. H. vii. 27.] [Ibid., c. 30.] 

x firf(rr\\ofjLv Se afj.a Kal -rrapeKa- y Sed et adversus Paulum Samosa- 

AoO/xcf Tr^AAous Kal rwv fj.aKpav evrjcr/crf- tenum ante paucos dies quam morere- 

TTOJI/, cTrt rr\v OepaTTfiav rrjs OavarrjQdpov tur, insignis ejus t ertur Epistola [vol. 

StSaaKahias &cnrep Ka\ AIOVIHTIOV rbv ii. p. 879-98.] 

Early use of the term opoovcrios allowed by Sandius. 321 

before lie died." He here applies to it the epithet notable 1 , BOOK n. 
because in it the catholic doctrine respecting the Son of 
God was excellently explained and established. Let us 
then briefly examine the argument which Sandius thought SIUsALEX - 
worthy of being opposed to so high an authority : " Erasmus 
Brochmandus," he says,, "rejects the epistle as spurious, 
because in it Christ is said to be O/JLOOVVIOS (of one substance) 
with the Father, whereas that word was not in use before 
the time of Arius." To be sincere and candid in my reply, 
I confess I do not know who the Brochmandus is whom 
Sandius here mentions 2 , nor does it much matter to know; 
for I am sure that his opinion, how great soever he be, must 
be accounted as worth nothing in comparison with the trust 
worthiness and authority of the fathers of Antioch, of Euse- 
bius, and of Jerome. And as to his argument, I have already 3 
in more than one place clearly proved that the expression 
ofjioovo-ios was in frequent use among Catholics long before [413] 
the council of Nice, and even before the time of Dionysius 
of Alexandria. But here is a notable specimen of Sandius s 
candour ! in this place he uses as a weapon of attack an 
argument which he himself, elsewhere, in express terms con 
fesses to be of no weight. For, in treating of Origen s books 
on Job, he makes this statement ; " They, however, are mis 
taken, who with Sixtus Senensis, Possevin, Bellarmine, and 
Rivet do not hold these treatises, as also the commentaries, 
to be the works of Origen, on the ground that there is men 
tion made in them of the word O^OOVCTLOS, which arose long 
after the times of Origen ; for we shall prove in the first book 
of our Ecclesiastical History that the word ofjuoovo-ios was 
already in use in the time of Origen. So it seems that this 
was a foolish 2 reason for proving that Origen was not the 2 inepta. 
author of the books on Job 3 , which yet learned men agree 3 ab Ori- 
in thinking are not Origen s : but now it is held valid for 
proving that Dionysius was not the author of the epistle 
against -Paul of Samosata, which all authorities, both in 
ancient and modern times, (with the single exception, per 
haps, of this Brochmandus,) do with one consent acknow- 

z [He was a Lutheran teacher of a Chap. 1. 8. [pp. 63, sqq.] 
theology, and professor in the univer- b De Script. Eccles., p. 30. 
sity of Copenhagen. B.] 



32.2 Dionysius rescued from the charge of Arianizing. 

ON THE ledge to have been written by Dionysius c . The truth is : 
the books on Job are stuffed full of Arian ravings; and 
therefore it suited the purpose of Sandius, an Arian, that 
they should be regarded as the genuine production of Ori- 
gen; on the contrary the epistle against Paul of Samosata 
which bears the name of Dionysius, excellently establishes 
the consubstantiality of the Son : and therefore, rightly or 
wrongly, it must by all means be rejected as spurious. Here 
is an honest and trustworthy historian d ! 

[414] Thus have we at last (if I mistake not) given abundant 
proof, that this very great man, Dionysius of Alexandria, did 
in no wise favour the blasphemy which Arius subsequently 
maintained, but that he was both in sentiment and in ex 
pression entirely catholic concerning the Son of God, and, 
further, concerning the Holy Trinity. I now pass on to 
other doctors of the Church. 




1. ST. THEODORE, alike the scholar and the glory of Origen, 
called afterwards by the name of Gregory, and surnamed 
" the Great," and " the Wonder-worker," (Thaumaturgus,) on 
account of his stupendous and celebrated deeds, for he 
wrought many and very great miracles, and converted nations 
[416] to the faith of Christ, not by words only, but much more by 
deeds was bishop of Neocsesarea, and contemporary with 
the Dionysii of Rome and Alexandria, but survived Diony 
sius of Alexandria; for Dionysius died before the last council 

e This epistle has been suspected by the argument of Basnage and Tille- 

many on the ground that the fathers niont, but it has been most fully refuted 

of Antioch in their synodal epistle (in by the editor of the works of Diony- 

Eusebius vii. 30.) expressly declare, sius, in his preface, p. Ivi. B.] 

that Dionysius addressed his letter to d [This epistle of Dionysius against 

the Church at Antioch in general, and Paul of Samosata is exceedingly well 

did not even deign to give a salutation defended in the preface to the works of 

to Paul. Cave. BOWYER. [This is Dionysius, p. xxii. &c. B.] 

The Confession of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. 323 

assembled at Antioch against Paul of Samosata : whereas BOOK n. 
Gregory 6 , as is clear from Eusebius f , was present at that U^XII^M 
council. He has handed down to posterity a most accurate GREGORY 
and complete Confession of faith, respecting the most holy THAUMAT. 
Trinity of one substance, expressed in the following words s 
" There is one God, Father of [Him who is] the living Word, 
subsisting Wisdom 1 and Power and [His] eternal Impress 2 ; \ 
perfect Begetter of the Perfect ; Father of the Only-begotten * 
Son. [There is] one Lord, Alone of the Alone, God of Heb - * 3 - 
God; Impress 3 and Image 4 of the Godhead, the operative 
Word ; Wisdom, comprehensive of the system of the uni- * " fi)l/ 
verse, and Power, productive of the whole creation; True 
Son of True Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incor 
ruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, and 
Eternal of Eternal. And [there is] one Holy Ghost, who 
hath His being of God 5 , and who hath appeared (that is 
to mankind) through the Son, Image of the Son, Perfect 
of the Perfect; Life, the cause of [all] them that live; 
Holy Fountain, Holiness, the Bestower of Sanctification ; 
in whom is manifested God the Father, who is over all and in 
all, and God the Son, who is through all. A perfect Trinity, 
not divided nor alien in glory, and eternity, and dominion 11 . 
There is therefore nothing created, or servile in the Trinity ; 
nor any thing superinduced, as though previously not-exist 
ent, and introduced afterwards. Never therefore was the Son 
wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but there 
is ever the same Trinity unchangeable and unalterable/ 

e He died in the same year, namely, Kal ev Traffi, Kal ebs 6 vlbs, 6 Sia trdv- 

A.D. 265. Cave. BOWYER. rtav. rptas reAeia, 86ty Kal aiSifo-riTi Kal 

f Hist. Eccl. vii. 28 ; compare c. 30. a<rtAei a ^ jue/ufojue nj, yUTjSe aTraAAo- 

% fts ebs, IlaTTyp hdyov %&VTOS, ao- rpiov^vr}. OVTG ofiv KTi(rr6v Ti,r) Sov\ov 

(pias v(pff T(a(Tr)s, Kal Swcfytecos, Kal x a ~ * v r fl rpidfii, cure eTret(ra/CTJj> TI, us 

paKrrjpos a iSiov reAeios reAeiov yewfj- irp6rfpov [j.\v ovx virap-%ov, vo"Tpov 8e 

rwp- riaT77p vlov (jiovoyevovs. efs Kvpios, eTreto-eA^i/ otfre ovv eVe AiTre irore vlbs 

f*.6vos eK ndvov, fbs e/c eou 4 -^apaKT^p Tlarpl, otTe| vicp iri/evfj.a, aAA s aTpeirros 

Kal CIK&V rr\s 0e^T7jTos, \6yos evepy6s- Kal dz/oAAoiWos f] avrt] rpias det. See 

ruv o\(av cnicrTacrecoi- Trepte/c- the works of Gregory Thaumat., p. 1. 

rt/c^, Kal SvvafJLis TTJS oArjs Kriaews Trot- edit. Paris. 1622. [and those of Greg. 

TJTLK^ vlbs a\r]6iris a^Bivov Uarpbs, Nyss., vol. iii. p. 546. After the Greek 

a.6paros aoparov, Kal aQOapros atpedp- Bp. Bull gives the Latin version, pub- 

rov, Kal aOdi/aros aOavdrov, Kal a iSios lished by Vossius.] 

mttlov. Kal ev irvfv/j.a dyiov, e /c eoi) h [Here the Creed ends : theremain- 

Ti]v virapfyv %x ov > Ka ^ L> u ^ Trefpyvhs, ing words are Gregorv Nyssen s. B. 

STjAaSTj TO?S avdpwirois, tiKwv rov vlov, This is not the case : see the notes in 

reAetov reAeiV fcf), &isT(ai> alria" infjyr} Gallandii Bibl. Patr., t. iii. p. 386, where 

ayia, ayioT^s, ayiaafj-ov x ?^^ & $ St. Gregory Nazianzen s references to 

i. 0ebs 6 Uar^p, 6 4-rrl TTO.VTUV this Creed will also be found.] 


324 Evidence of the genuineness of this Confession ; 




T " E S N 



h wiu their 


2. This Confession of faith was delivered, it is said, to 
Gregory by revelation from heaven, when, being wholly intent 
upon discharging his pastoral charge in the best way, he was 
one night considering the mode of preaching the pure faith 
to his people, and revolving in his mind the various questions 
which were then in controversy respecting the Holy Trinity. 
And certainly no one ought to think it incredible that such 
an event should have happened to a man, whose whole life 
was illustrious from revelations and miracles, as all ecclesias 
tical writers who have mentioned him and there is scarcely 
one who has not unanimously attest. But however that 
may he, it is certain that this formula of catholic confession 
respecting the most Holy Trinity did really proceed from 
Gregory. For it is attributed to him not only by Ruffinus , 
but also by his namesake, Gregory of Nyssa k , who had a 
thorough and accurate knowledge of what the admirable man 
did and wrote, and who also composed his life. Moreover this 
excellent man narrates the matter in such a way, that scarcely 
any sensible person can doubt about it. I mean that, being 
about to recite the Confession, he premises the following 
words 1 ; " By which (Confession) the people of that city 
(Neoc3esarea) are to this day initiated [in the faith 1 ], having 
continued unaffected by all heretical pravity." So certain, 

vou see ^ was 

this Confession of faith proceeded from 

Gregory Thaumaturgus, that all the people of the city of 
Neocsesarea, of which he was the bishop and the immortal 
glory, embraced it as the undoubtedly genuine work of Gre 
gory, and had been used to be instructed by means of it, from 
so far back as their fathers could remember down to the age of 
Nyssen ; and hence it came to pass that, when the whole world 
became Arian, the Church of Neocsesarea kept itself untainted 
by heretical pravity. Again, after having recited the Con 
fession, Nyssen subjoins these words 1 " : " And whoever wishes 
to be convinced on this point, let him hear the Church in which 
he used to preach the Word, among whom the very hand 
writing of that blessed hand is preserved even at the present 

1 Hist. Eccl. ii. 25. 

k In bis life of Gregory Thauin., 
Oper., torn. ii. p. 978, 979. [vol. iii. 
p. 546.] 

1 Si ?)$ /j.vffTaywye iTai H*"xpi TOV vvv 
6 e/ceiVrjs \abs, irdffris atpertKrjs Ka/aa? 

Sia/xeiVas aireipaTos. [Ibid.] 
6r<p Se QiKov irepl TOVTOU 
aKoverca TTJS fKK\r)crias, ev p rbv \6yov 
Kf)pvTTfv, Trap ols aura ra 
TTJS /maKapias eiteivrjs xetpbs (Is ert 
vvv Smo-wferot. [Ibid., p. 547.] 

rom its careful preservation by the Church ofNeocasarea. 325 

day." He appeals to the very autograph of Thaumaturgus, BOOK n. 
which was religiously kept by the Neocsesareans down to his CHA \ XII 
own day. I know not, certainly, that any thing more can 

be required for the confirmation of a tradition of this nature. THAUMAT. 
Gregory Nyssen s testimony, however, is explicitly supported, 
as it seems to me, by his brother Basil the Great, who, in his 
seventy-fifth epistle to the people of Neocsesarea, testifies, that 
he had learnt from his grandmother, in his tender age, the 
very words of Gregory Thaumaturgus, by which he had been 
instructed aright respecting the faith in the most Holy 
Trinity. His words are these 11 : What can be a more mani 
fest demonstration of our faith, than this, that we, having 
been brought up under the nurture ] of a woman of blessed 
memory 2 , who came forth from you I mean the illustrious 2 
Macrinaj by whom we were taught the words of the most 
blessed Gregory, whatsoever, having been preserved to her by 
the tradition of memory 3 , she both herself kept treasured up, 
and used to mould and fashion us, whilst we were yet infants, 
in the doctrines of religion ?" Here, I say, it seems to me, 
that the Confession of Thaumaturgus is certainly referred to ; 
for Basil expressly testifies that he had, in his infancy, learned 
of his grandmother Macrina, a native of Neocsesarea, the form 4 4 
of faith touching the most Holy Trinity, (for of that he is 
there treating,) as it had been delivered in so many words by 
Gregory. Reader, observe : Nyssen relates that the people of 
Neoc^esarea used to be instructed by means of the Confession 
of Thaumaturgus, from so far back as their fathers could re 
member down to his own age ; whilst Basil says that he had 
learned, in his tender age, (that is, before the council of Nice,) 
from his grandmother, (whilst he, that is, with his parents, 
was living with her at Neocsesarea in Pontus,) the right faith 

11 iria-Tfias 5e TTJS ^ucre pos rfs av ye- nor referred to any confession of faith 

voiro eVapyerrre pa airoS^is, % fai rpa- " written by the hand of Gregory."- 

deWes 7)jue?s virb rirOr) juo/capuj ywaitfl, B. The existence of an autograph of 

Trap VULUV &pnwevy\ Ma/cpiW \tyu St. Gregory s Confession would not 

i-V irfpi)8fo?TOj/- p 5 fa eSi5c x 0^e" cause the Church to depart from the 

TOV /aaKapiuTarov Tpyyopiov p^uaTa, tiva ordinary practice of not circulating the 

Trpbs avr^iv a.KO\ovei^ /JLJ^ifi-ns Sioffweevra Creed in writing. It would he taught 

avr-n re tyv\sur<re, ieal ^/xas en vifirlovs and known to the people and preserved 

foras eTrAoTTe /cat e^pfyov TO?$ rrjs among them by oral transmission. 

euo-ejSefos Myncun Basil. Opera, torn. And as no question was raised about 

iii. p. 131. edit. Paris, 1638. [Ep. cciv. the terms of the Confession, St. Basil 

6. vol. iii. p. 306.] " aa no nee( i to re ^ er to 

[From these very words Lardner supposing it existed.] 
contends that Basil had neither seen 

n Y , 

I 1 1 I -. SON. 

326 Confirmed by other external and internal considerations. 

respecting the most Holy Trinity, expressed in so many words 
of Gregory. Who would not suppose, that they both are speak- 
in S of tne same Confession of faith ? Further, also, the same 
Basil, in his book on the Holy Spirit, chap. 29, testifies that so 
great was the reputation of this Gregory amongst the people of 
Neocaesarea down to his own times, that they would admit in 
their Church nothing, whether in doctrine or rite, but what 
they had received by tradition from that their great founder. 
The words of Basil are these P : " Great is the admiration 
of this man (Gregory) still, even at this day, amongst the 
people of the country, and the remembrance of him is esta 
blished in the Churches fresh, and ever recent, not obscured 
by any lapse of time. They have not, therefore, added to 
their Churcl1 an y P ractice ; or word, or any sacred form * beyond 
what he left to them." If the Church of Neocaesarea refused 
153 to admit any word beyond what was left to them by Gregory, 
certainly much less would they have admitted any Creed or 
Confession of faith, which they had not received from him. 
And yet it is most certain, that in the time of Basil, the 
Confession of faith of which we are speaking, was received 
in that Church, and that too as having been delivered by 
[421] Gregory. To these facts may be added, that this Confession 
is delivered, as without doubt the genuine work of Thauma- 
turgus, by the whole of the fathers who were assembled at 
the fifth oecumenical synod. Lastly, the Confession itself 

2 redoiet. quite bears the character 2 of the age of Gregory Thauma- 

turgus; in that it is manifestly opposed to the heresies, 
which were especially disturbing the Church of Christ at 
that period. Two heresies were particularly prevalent at 
that time, as is clear from the epistle of Dionysius of Rome, 
found in Athanasius, which we have already mentioned ; one, 
that of Sabellius, which laid down that the Father, the Son 
and the Holy Ghost differed in name only, not in hypo- 

3 6*- stasis 3 (person ;) the other as it were diametrically opposed 

to the Sabellian, that, I mean of those, who divided the most 
Holy Trinity into three hypostases, separate, foreign to, and 
mutually alien from each other, and who further affirmed, 

f P TOVTOV p.eya ert /cal vvv rols ey^co- irpa|fc nva,ov \6yov,ov T^TTOV nva HVVTI- 

piois rbfavfia, nal vtapb K al ael irp6- K bi>, Trap ttv MWOS Kare Anre, -rrj ^K\r,aia, 

afyaros t] nvhw TCUS eKK\tjaiais eV/Spu- Trpotr^Kax. Basil. Oper., torn. ii. p. 

OVKOVVOV 360. edit. Paris. 1638. [vol. iii. p. 63.] 

Not mentioned by certain writers ; this no valid objection. 327 

that the Son and the Holy Ghost were creatures, and that BOOK 11. 
there was a time, when God the Father existed without CH A 2, 3" 
them 1 . These words at the beginning of the Confession GREGORY 
plainly strike at the former heresy : " Father of [Him, who ?*" 
is] the living Word, subsisting Wisdom :" and also these, quando 
"True Son of True Father;" (for Sabellius acknowledged de e f e C ?sse! 
neither a true Father nor a true Son, but both only in name :) 
and, lastly, these respecting the Holy Ghost ; " who hath 
His being of God." The following words, besides others, 
certainly give a death-blow to the latter heresy : " Perfect 
Trinity, not divided nor alien in glory, and eternity, and 
dominion;" as do those which follow* : " There is, therefore, 
nothing created, or servile in the Trinity," &c. In a word, 
let the attentive reader compare the profession of Dionysius 
of Rome respecting the most Holy Trinity (which we quoted 
in the last chapter, 1. [page 303,] from Athanasius) with 
this Confession of his contemporary, Gregory, of whom we 
are speaking, and he will immediately see the wonderful 
agreement between the two. 

3. Now, what does Sandius r say to these facts? " Of this 
Confession of faith," he says, "I say nothing else than that [422] 
Eusebius, Jerome, and Sophronius are silent about it ;" as 
if, forsooth, Eusebius and Jerome mentioned every thing 
which the ancient fathers wrote and did. Eusebius, certainly, 
in his Ecclesiastical History, by what chance I know not, 
(for I cannot prevail on myself to believe that it was done, 
as Anastasius the Librarian 8 thought, with any evil design,) 
has suppressed almost all mention of the praises of Gregory 
Thaumaturgus, and says nothing about his miracles, which 
were celebrated throughout the Christian world. I imagine 
that, in some other work which has been lost, Eusebius had 
related more concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus; at any 
rate, in the Apology 4 for Origen he makes mention of his 
disciple Gregory Thaumaturgus, and also inserted in that 
work a panegyrical oration of his in praise of Origen, as 
Socrates attests, Eccl. Hist. IV. 27. As for Jerome, he trod 
generally in the very steps of Eusebius s history, whilst So- 

i [These words, however, as we have 8 Anastasius on the year of Christ 

already observed, are Gregory Nyssen s. 246. ^n,i 

-B. But see above, p. 323, note h.J [i.e. the Apology of Pamphilus 

r De Script. Eccl., p. 39. and Eusebius. B.j 

328 Labbe confounds this with a longer Exposition of faith. 
ON THE phronius was merely a translator of Jerome. I wonder, how- 

CONSUB- i . 

STANTIA- ever > what came into Philip Labbe s mind, when he wrote the 
THE soN P . followin S Passage in his Dissertation upon the Ecclesiastical 
- Writers u ; " It is certain, indeed, as St. Gregory Nyssen wit 
nesses in his Life of Thaumaturgus, that the Mother of God 
appeared with St. John the Evangelist, and commanded John 
to deliver to him an Exposition of the catholic faith. But 
whether this be that, which Vossius has published*, Bellar 
mine with good reason doubted; see his words, as well as 
those of Petavius, who denies it, (Dogm. Theol., vol. ii.)" 
For Beilarrnine never doubted, whether the Confession of 
faith published by Vossius were in reality that of Gregory 
Thaumaturgus; nay, lie held this to be certain, as will be 
manifest to any one who consults Bellarmine himself. Con 
cerning the eK0e(rt,s or longer Exposition of faith, which is 
[423] called Kara ^epos, which was also published by Vossius, 
Bellarmine does indeed doubt, and that with very good rea 
son. It is also untrue, that Petavius denied the Confession, 
as it was published by Vossius, to be the genuine work of 
Gregory; nay, he cites it as Gregory s, and expressly calls 
it, " An illustrious monument of the tradition of which we 
are now treating, and of the ecclesiastical and catholic pro 
fession concerning the Trinity " (Preface to vol. ii. chap. 4. 
n. 5.) But unquestionably he also, when speaking of the 
longer Exposition of faith, (which Labbe here confounded 
with the shorter Confession of Gregory,) does deny, and not 
without very grave reasons, that it is the genuine work of 
Gregory; on the Trinity, i. 4. 10. However, Labbe^s state 
ment that there is just ground for doubting, whether the 
Confession of faith, which Gregory Nyssen ascribes to Gre 
gory Thaumaturgus, is the same as that which Vossius pub 
lished, must astonish every one : for the Confession of faith, 
which Vossius published, corresponds word for word with that 
which Gregory Nyssen ascribes to Gregory Thaumaturgus. 
If Labbe had caught any one of the heterodox critics, as he 
calls them, so shamefully tripping, how would he (as his way 
is) have insulted over him ! But this by the way y. 

V - P ,f f V y [ Lardr er shews by many 

That ,s, that which Bp. Bull has ments not to be despised that thi 
citedj see above, p. 323, note h.J mida of faith is no P t b 

Gregory s Panegyric Oration on Oriyen. 


4. Furthermore, there is still extant among the works of 
Gregory, as published by Vossius, a panegyric Oration upon 
Origen, Avhich all agree, and which Sandius himself allows, 
is the genuine production of that very great man. In that 
Oration, after saying that God the Father cannot worthily be 
praised by any creature, He subjoins these truly magni 
ficent words concerning the Son of God z ; "But our praises 
and hymns unto the King and Ruler of all, the continual 
fountain of all good things, we will commit to Him who 
even herein healeth our infirmities, and who alone is able to 
fill up what is wanting in us the Guardian 1 and Saviour of 
our souls, His first-born Word, the Creator and Governor 
all things, He Himself alone being able to offer up the per 
petual and unceasing thanksgivings unto the Father both 
for Himself and for all, both for each individually by him 
self and for the whole body, because He Himself, being the 
Truth, and the Wisdom and Power of the Father Himself of 
all things, and, besides, both being in Him and absolutely 
united 2 to Him, it is not possible that, either through forget- 

BOOK n. 


^ 4/^ 


genuine work of Gregory, but a com 
position of the fourth century. B. 
Lardner s arguments seem to be of two 
sorts; 1. Internal improbabilities. 2. 
"Want of external evidence. In the 
first he, (i.) argues as if the genuine 
ness of the Creed were disproved by 
the vision being proved legendary : and 
(ii.) goes upon his own notions of the 
small importance of the doctrine of the 
Trinity. In the second he alleges (i.) 
St. Jerome s omission; but St. Jerome 
does not profess to enumerate all the 
writings of the persons he mentions, 
(ii.) St. Basil s criticising St. Gregory, 
but this is only with respect to his ex 
pressions in an argument. See below, 
p. 333. (iii.) St. Basil s omitting to 
appeal to the autograph. On this see 
above, p. 325. note o. And Lardner 
omits to notice that it is the baptis 
mal Creed of Neocsesarea of which 
St. Gregory Nyssen professedly speaks : 
which must have been too well known 
to allow of a recent composition being 
passed off instead of it] 

* dAAa ras ptv ds rbv irdvrcav j8a<n- 
Ae a Kal KT]Sfj.6i/a, r^v Szap/crj irr]yr]V 
, fv<pri/j.ias Kal V/J.VQVS, 
KO.V rovrw rriv acrQweiav rj/j.wv M/J.C- 

>, Kal rb eVSeoi/ avairXripovv pAvi? 8v- 
l , r<$ trpoffrdry r<av 

Kal (TUTrjpi, T< 

roytvei avrov A<7^, ry TrdvTMV STJ/U- 
ovpyy, Kal Kvpspvhrr). avry fj.6vu> inrep 
T f avrov, Kal virep irdvruiv, iSia re Kal 
KO.& e/cao-Toi/- Kal aOpoov apa Svvarbv ov 
avair/j.ireiv SiTji/e/ceTs Kal aStaAtnrTOus- 
T Tlarpl ras euxapJO Tias* on avrbs 77 
a\r]6eia &v, Kal r\ avrov rov Harpbs r&v 
o\tov Kal aofy ia Kal SvvafAis, irpbs 5e Kal 
eV avry &v, ital irpbs avrbi> 
riv<aiJizvos, OVK %<rriv OTTCOS T) Sta 
aaocpws, r\ UTT aaQtveias TWOS, Socnrep 
rts a7reei/cojueVos avrov, TI OVK e^t|erai 
rfj 5vvd/j.ei rrjs ^vva^(tis, r] <ptfTCU /J.ev, 
e/ccbf Se, t) ftr/ Oe/J-ls elire iv, e atrrj 3 rov 
Hartpa a.vsvq>riiJ.-r\rov. fj.6vc$ rovra) Svva- 
rbv oz/ re\i6rara ivaffav airoTrXrjpuxrai 
r}]v a^iav ruv avry Trpoa-nKoi^rcav atixav" 
ov riva avrbs 6 ru>v o\(av Ilar^p ev irpbs 
avrbv iroir)(rdfji.tvos, Si avrov fj-ovovovxl 
avrbs avrbv eKTrepi&v, rfj ta"ri Trdvrrj 
$vvdfj.ei rrj avrov rp6irov riva rip.tff] Kal 
rtfjifpro owep irpuros Kal fj.6vos 
eAa%6z/ CK irdvrcov rwv ovrtav 
vrjs avrov, 6 eV avrip zbs \6yos. [ The 
Bened. ed. reads e 7riTpe / i//o / uei . 2 Vossius 
read t 5/a re /col kKaarov, but conjec 
tured in the margin, /ca0 eKaarov, 
which Bull inserted, retaining the Kal 
also; the Bened. ed. re Katf vtao-rov. 
3 e ckrt, ed. Ben.] P. 53, 54. [In vol. 
iv. Op. Origenis, p. 59. Append. 4.] 



(qU. 6/C7T6- 

puwv. ) 



330 Gregory s full testimony to the Divinity of the Son. 

fulness or from defect of wisdom, or from any infirmity, (as 
one who was alien b from Him,) He shall either not attain by 
His own power unto the power of the Father, or shall attain 
- unto it indeed, and yet (which it were impious to say) shall 
willingly allow the Father to be unpraised; He alone being 
able to fill up most perfectly the due praises which belong to 
Him; whom the Father of the universe Himself, having 
made One l with Himself, Himself by Him all but going forth 
and encircling Himself 02 , in a certain manner honours Him, 
and is honoured by Him, with power every way equal to His 
own ; which [honour] His only-begotten Son, God the Word, 
who is in Him, first and alone of all beings obtained." Shortly 
afterwards in the same passage, he calls the Son d " the most 
perfect, and living, and animate Word of the primal Mind 
Himself 6 ." In these words how many titles are heaped up 
concerning the Son of God, which eminently set forth His true 
Godhead ! lie calls the Son of God the Guardian of our 
souls, the first-born Word of God, the Creator and Governor 
of all things, the Truth, Wisdom and Power of the Father 
Himself : who is in the Father Himself, and truly united unto 
Him ; who is subject to no forgetfulness, no lack of wisdom, 
no infirmity ; who is in no wise alien from God the Father ; 
who by His own power attains unto the Father s power; whom 
God the Father made one with Himself, and in whom He, as 
it were, circumscribed His own infinite Majesty; (clearly in 
the same sense as the very ancient writer "in Irenseus, as 
we saw above f , declared that the immeasurable Father Him 
self is measured in the Son :) who is in very truth endued 
with power in every way equal to that of the Father ; who 
lastly, subsists in God Himself, as God the Word, and that 
the most perfect Word, as being sprung from the primal and 
eternal Mind. Could any one of the Arian herd, sincerely 
and from his heart, utter these things of the Son of God ? 
Nor ought it to be the slightest difficulty to any one that 1 

b So in the Confession Gregory de 
nies that there is any thing alien (curaA- 

in the Trinity. 

avrov uovovovxl aurbs avrbv /c- 
This clause he added by way 
of safeguard, (caute,) for, properly 
speaking, if the Son encircled (circum- 
ambiet) the Father, He would be 
greater than the Father, whereas he 

meant only to say that he was by na 
ture equal to Him. 

d TeAeioraTOJ/ Kal U>VTO,, KOL avrov rov 
trpuTov vov \6yov ep.tyvxov. [Ibid.J 

e In like manner in the Confession 
he calls the Son " perfect, of the per 
fect Father," as also "living Word." 

1 Chap. v. 4. [p. 164.] 

St. Basil s testimony to St. Gregory s orthodoxy. 331 

Thaumaturgus says, that the Son honours and praises His BOOK n. 
Father, seeing that he also at the same time says, that the ^ 5. 
Father has honoured the Son, by imparting to Him power, GREGORY 
in every way equal to His own. The truth is, the Son praises THAUMAT. 
and honours the Father, as the Author and Principle of Him 
self; the Father, on the other hand embraces, and in a man 
ner even honours, the Son, as the lively and most perfect 
Image and Offspring of Himself. Hence also, catholic writers 
who lived after the Nicene council, throughout spake in like 
manner concerning the Son of God. Although in this passage 
Gregory may seem also to have in view the economy of the 
Son 1 , in so far as He, as Mediator, presents unto God the 1 Filii ol KO - 
Father the prayers and thanksgivings of the faithful, and by " " a 
His own intercession makes them pleasing and acceptable. 
Nay, he expressly speaks of the Son as, in this matter, " heal 
ing our infirmity/ For this mediatorial office he shews that 
the Son is altogether sufficient, inasmuch as, in respect to His 
higher nature, He is entirely one with the Father, and pos 
sesses a power 2 in every respect equal to that of the Father. 2 virtute 
5. Finally, if there were extant at this day no written P 11 !^- 
monument of Gregory s belief respecting the most holy 
Trinity, the great Basil alone would be a most ample testimony 
that his sentiments on that article were sound, uncorrupt, 
and catholic. For Basil, as often as his heretical opponents 
called in question 3 his faith respecting the Trinity, so often 3 litem ips 
almost did he appeal to the tradition of Gregory Thauma- ren e t nde ~ 
turgus, and professed, that he had held from a boy altogether 
the same views respecting the Trinity, as that admirable man [427] 
taught. Thus, in his seventy-fifth epistle, to the people of 
Neocsesarea g , he makes it his boast, as has been already 
shewn, that he had learnt the catholic doctrine respecting 
the most holy Trinity in his boyhood from the words of 
Thaumaturgus, which had been taught him by 4 his grand- 4 ipsi tra- 
mother Macrina. Moreover he also distinctly attests in his dltas per 
seventy-ninth epistle, to Eustathius, that he had never changed 
that faith concerning God, which he had received through 
his grandmother ; these are his words h ; " For even if all the 
rest of my life 5 deserve lamentation ; yet still this one thing, 

* [Ep. cciv.] # ta , d\\ olv 4v 7e TOUTO T0\fj.a> nav 

el yap Kal r&\Xa T]jJL(av artvay^wv ^acrflcu eV Kvpiw, on ovdeirore vreTrAa- 

332 Petavim (followed by Hael and Sandius) attributes 

2 avfr8e?- 



4 cogita- 
tione no- 

sir a, 

5 hypostasi 

at least, I am bold to glory of in the Lord, that my concep 
tions concerning God were never at any time led astray; 
nor having at one time held different opinions, did I after 
wards unlearn them ; but the notion of God which from a 
. child I received from my mother of blessed memory 1 , and from 
my grandmother, Macrina, this have I retained within me, 
[only] grown and enlarged 2 ." Thus, if the sentiments of 
Basil on the Trinity were (as no one doubts) orthodox and 
religious, Gregory also, on the testimony of Basil himself, was 
catholic in that article. Basil also, on the authority of the 
Gregory of whom we are speaking, defends that form of dox- 
ology, by which the most Holy Trinity was glorified in the 
Churches subject to his government, and to which the here 
tics were so vehemently averse, in his Treatise on the Holy 
Spirit addressed to Amphilochius, chapter 29 i ; where, after 
he had brought together the highest praises of that very 
great man, he subjoins these words, which bear on our sub 
ject ; " One therefore of the [institutions] of Gregory is that 
form of doxology, which is now spoken against ; preserved 
from his tradition by the Church ;" that is, of Neoca3sarea, 
which he all but founded. It was with good reason, therefore, 
and in reliance on the testimony of Basil k , that Anastasius 
the librarian, in his history, pronounced that this Gregory 
especially was entirely free 3 from the ravings of Arius. 

6. Now, this being the case, I cannot sufficiently wonder at 
those very learned men, who have ventured to bring a charge 
of Arianisrn against this great doctor of the Church, and even 
to put forward the authority of Basil as supporting their 
charge. Petavius 1 declares that two errors (not more incon 
sistent with the truth than with each other) are attributed to 
Gregory Thaumaturgus by Basil, in his seventy-fifth epistle ; 
one the Sabellian, which taught that the Father and the Son 
differed only in our mode of conception 4 , but not in hyposta- 
sis 5 ; the other the Arian, which affirmed the Son to be " a 
creature and a work," (KT KJ^CI /cal Troty/Aa.) And with re- 

Vf]fj.4vas ecrxof TO.S irepl 0eoC 
3) erepws (ppovwv fJ.eTf/j.aOoi varepoV 
oAA. fyv e/c TraiSbs eAa^Soi cvvoiav irtpl 
&eov Trapa rrjs //o/captos p.-rirp6s /nou teal 
Trjs fj.d/jL/u. r)s Ma/cptVrys, ravrrjv av^rjOfi- 
oral e&xov tV e/j.avT(p. torn. iii. p. 141. 
[Ep. ccxxiii. 3. vol. iii. p. 338.] 

ec roivvv TUV Tprjyopiov KO.I 6 vvv 
a Ti\y6fj.evos Tp6iros rrjs 8oo\oyias 
earlv, e/c rfjs fKeivov irapafiocrtcas rrj 
e/c/cA?;^ ir(pv\ay/ [ 74. p. 63.] 

k Anastasius, on the year of Christ, 

l De Trin. i. 4. 10. 

heretical opinions to Gregory : shewn to be in error. 333 
spect to the former, Petavius endeavours to shew that BOOK n. 


Gregory s statements were correct ; whilst in the latter he 5 , e. 
thinks that Thaumaturgus did Arianize. Huet m also, rely- GREGORY 
ing too much, as it seems, on the candour and judgment of THAUMAT - 
Petavius, writes, "that Gregory Thaumaturgus was censured 1 1 castiga- 
by Basil, for openly affirming that the Son was created." 
Afterwards he does not hesitate to say, that that admirable 
man was " a follower of the ravings of Arms." The Arian 
Sandius", relying on the authority of these very learned 
men, glories greatly in the fact, that one who was so great 
a glory and ornament of the Christian Church, by the con 
fession of us Catholics ourselves, agreed in opinion with [429] 
Arius. If, however, we consider with a little more atten 
tion the words of Basil themselves, from which the mate 
rials of this accusation have been derived, it will presently 
appear, that the charge of Arianism is made on Gregory 
against the mind 2 of Basil. Basil then, in his seventy-fourth 2 ingrains. 
epistle , to the people of Neocsesarea, after he had said that 
the revivers of Sabellianism amongst them, with whom he 
was in controversy, had even consigned their follies to pub 
lished works, having mentioned an epistle of theirs to Mele- 
tius, presently animadverts on another epistle, addressed by 
them to Anthimus, a bishop, in which they put forward the 
great Gregory s authority for their ravings. These are the 
words of Basil p ; " They made an attempt by letter on An 
thimus also, bishop of Tyana, who is of one mind with us, 
as if forsooth Gregory, in an exposition of the faith, had said 
that the Father and the Son are indeed two in [our] mode 156 
of conception 3 , but in hypostasis, one 4 . And these men who 3 <hiWa. 
congratulate themselves on the subtilty of their minds, were 4 *" 
[yet] unable to perceive that this was not said dogmatically, 
but in the way of argument in his disputation with ^lian : 
in which many [expressions] are errors of the transcribers," 
(that is to say, many things have been wrongly 5 copied from 5 perperam. 
the original MS.,) "as we shall shew, if God will, on the 

m Huet. Origenian., p. 36. [lib. ii. yopiov eiVoi/ros eV e0eV irlffTCs, 

Qugest. 2. 10. p. 122.] Trarepa /cat vibv f-mvoia /uer e?j/cu Suo, 

n Enucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 111. vTrocrrao-et Se eV. TOVTO Se 6n ov So7/xa- 

[Ep. ccx. 5.] TIKUS etprjTai, aAA 5 aycafKmKws eV 

p KaQriKav 5e nva jre ipav 5t eTricrro- Trpbs AlAiapbf SiaAe|et, OVK i 

\risKalirpbsrbv 6^6\l/v)(OJ/ rj/J.uv" hvQi- avvfieLV ol eVi AeTTT^TTjTt^T 

>s &pa Tprj- eavrovs naKapifrvrfs ev y iro\\a 



|ecoi> ex ip- 
sis verbis. 



Trpbs TO. 
5 airaiSev- 

c Trpbs rbv 


7 cogita- 

c ionum 

} operam 




334 The Sabellian view stated by him in discussion only. 

words themselves 1 . Further, in using persuasion to a heathen, 
he did not think it necessary to be exact in his words, but 
[thought that he ought] in certain cases to adapt himself 2 to 
what he whom he was seeking to persuade had been accus 
tomed to 3 , in order that he might not offer opposition on 
the most important points 4 , on which very account you will 
also find there many expressions, which now give the greatest 
strength to the [cause of the] heretics, such as creature 
t (aria pa,} and work (wo it) pa,) and others which there may 
be of that kind. Besides, they who hear what he has written 
without previous instruction 5 , refer to the subject of the God 
head much of what is said with reference to the union with 
the manhood 6 ; and of this kind is that also, which these 
[heretics] are circulating." In the passage Basil informs us, 
that the Sabellians understood those words in Gregorv s ex 
position, "that the Father and the Son are indeed two in 
[our] mode of conception 7 , but in hypostasis one," which 
he had brought forward in the course of discussion only on 
the hypothesis of his opponents as the doctrine of Gregory 
himself; and for this he ridicules the v, ant of perception of 
the witlings 8 , who were unable to discern what was so obvious. 
Basil therefore, does not say that it was the actual opinion of 
Gregory, that the Father and the Son differed simply in [our] 
conception [of Them 9 ,] but he says the precise "contrary. 
Petavius accordingly lost his labour and his time 10 , when he 
endeavoured by I know not what subtleties to defend that 
statement, as if it were made by Gregory in a right and 
catholic sense, and censured Basil, as if he had without good 
grounds found fault with the same declaration of Gregory. 
For Gregory never wrote this as his own opinion ; nor did 
Basil anywhere attribute that foolish heresy to him. Basil, 
moreover, says that faulty copies of that work of Gregory 
had been circulated by the heretics, in which many things 

/ eo-Tt ff(t)d\^ara, us eV TIKO?S /neyiaryv Iffxvv Trap X o^vas us 
ruv \4 UV Sf^f V fcieg & 6 rb Kria^